How Far Does The Rabbit Hole Go? (Not very far at all.) from Shawn Hartnell's blog

This statement is the second most important principle in my philosophy:

"Everything is bullshit." which can also be stated literally "It's all in my head."

My universe is the experience of living here, now, in the moment and it's very small - it's only my awareness of my immediate sensory experience. Everything beyond that is bullshit, or, in my head, the output of my imagination.

'Earth', at the moment I'm writing this is not floating in space -- the 'Earth' I know is an imaginary construct floating in my mind. I don't accept that 'Earth' has any existence beyond that -- bullshit.

I understand that the bullshit sinks into the subconscious creates meaning in my immediate sensory experience. So not even seeing is not believing, only seeing bullshit in action.

No bullshit is better than any other bullshit, it only varies in color. Color is a matter of preference.

I don't see the world, I see my mind in action.

Blog home

The Wall

Priesthood

Jul 1 '12

Priestess CoraSahn

So then, does 'Belief is Reality' resonate with you, or are you still questioning this premise?

Priesthood

Jul 1 '12

Shawn Hartnell

That 'belief is reality' is obvious to me. More than obvious, more self-evident.

Duck or rabbit?

Priesthood

Jul 1 '12

Priestess CoraSahn

I inquired whether or not it resonates, vs. whether it is self-evident or obvious.

Does it matter? And if so, why does it matter?

Priesthood

Jul 2 '12

Shawn Hartnell

You'd have to define 'resonate' from your perspective.

Priesthood

Jul 3 '12

Priestess CoraSahn

I was using it the context of pattern and feeling.

Ipsissimus

Jul 6 '12

Venger Satanis

Well, I resonate with this bit of philosophy more than pure selfishness. Without the mind filtering and interpreting reality, there would effectively be nothing... from our limited perspective.

Whether it's bullshit or not is a value judgement; I can't answer that for each individual in question. Personally, I wouldn't call it bullshit, but I don't mind referring to everything as an "imaginary construct". That doesn't bother me. After all, I do have to imagine it, to some degree, in order to visualize or picture what something is, how it operates, its function, reason, etc. And I'm not alone.

So, I support the part of your philosophy that states everything, to a certain degree, exists in the mind. However, I reject the part which views the self as only capable of self-centeredness.

Another provocative blog post, Shawn.

Priesthood

Jul 6 '12

Priestess CoraSahn

I wouldn't say that the mind is only 'capable' of self-centeredness. More so, self-concern. I mean, that's what selfishness is, a concern for the self. Language is always the bane to any discussion. There are 'negative' connotations to being self-centered, and they are often implied.

Without you, what do you really have? When you hold your child, do you do this because your child requires it, or because the self desires it?

Priesthood

Jul 6 '12

Shawn Hartnell

"Without you, what do you really have? When you hold your child, do you do this because your child requires it, or because the self desires it?"

Perfect example. :)

Cultist

Jul 7 '12

Alex

Although I believe that we're all facets of the same source of energy, and so helping others is still just helping ourselves. Other people, in my opinion, are just reflections of my own mind. So talking to them or doing actions for them is just self gratification.

Priesthood

Jul 7 '12

Shawn Hartnell

I've realized that I'm simply arguing the autotelic viewpoint.

'A thing which is autotelic is described as "having a purpose in and not apart from itself"

"Mihaly Csikszentmihaly describes people who are internally driven, and as such may exhibit a sense of purpose and curiosity as autotelic. This determination is an exclusive difference from being externally driven, where things such as comfort, money, power, or fame are the motivating force. "

Priesthood

Jul 8 '12

Priestess CoraSahn

"I" is the self. No matter how many times that "I" is sliced, diced, and made into something seemingly 'new', that tried and true self is still there, under the surface. Even if that self is a complete asshole.

That asshole may be kept at bay, and assuredly so that "I" benefits directly from doing so.

We are constantly externally driven, this drive is represented by the influences we are bombarded with every moment of the day. We take in stimuli and process it internally, and then exude our sense of self because of it.

Consider 'introspect', what is that really? Why do we want what we want? Need what we need? It's all purely selfish but even the 'self' doesn't belong to us wholly until we are able to identify it as uniquely 'me'.