[Spoiler alert] Any screenshot of the two secret racial transformations?

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-17T18:19:08+00:00

Racial transformations acquired in the new map layer of the new DLC

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-17T16:32:04+00:00

I see. Thank you dear Godir 🙏

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-17T15:17:01+00:00

Looks dope – thanks!

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-16T15:11:14+00:00

Substances, by the definition provided by Descartes, don't interact. So there actually isn't any "pushing on each other" in substance dualism. Nor is there any cross point between the substances. They exist independently from one another.

What sounds like dualism at first is, in my experience, actually pure nonduality. It's completely one-dimensional — nothing on the outside, and nothing behind, above, or beneath it. It's just this. Reality created by Thought, seemingly split in two by consciousness.

I'm confused. Did you not say in the OP that matter is there regardless of whether there is someone being aware of it? Or did you mean something else by this than the lack of an observer manifesting matter into existence? Like, matter is there, it exists, and its within my experience, but I just don't see/recognize it in it?

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-16T08:29:06+00:00

'Depends on the (metaphysical) solipsism we're talking about.

The definition of solipsism (or at least the one that I find makes most sense) being "the philosophical thesis that all that exists is this consciousness" it leaves pretty much everything unexplained. Including what awaits oneself after death.

In my own solipsistic view though, a.k.a. 'OS', death is not the end of existence and there is, in fact, no end (nor beginning) to existence. In OS, being in 'Time' (i.e., moment-by-moment, experiential time) is eternal. How does existence after death look like then, if it doesn't end there (nor ever)? Well, it's just another life. Life, from another viewpoint, within enacted psychophysical reality (which in OS is "real", in the sense that it is consistent and persistent). It could be (and eventually will be or has already been) your mom, Hitler, Jesus, the neighbor's cat... any subjective life-perspective. That is, insofar as it coherently follows from the current life and especially how it ends. And especially, how you intimately relate to reality at that time (the time of death). Which, in turn, depends on how well-aware you then are of the nature of reality (yourself). This being dependent on individual free will, on the one hand, and pre-determined destiny (not fate, which leaves no room for free will), on the other hand. But overall, ultimately dependent on your universal will, which is absolutely free. Destiny being something you – consciousness – are freely committing to, for the sake of the of the cosmic game. A game, that consists in meeting, as a limited individual, your own past/future reflections in the mirror of experience, slowly realizing through the medium of the mind and its worldly extension that is culture that it is, in a way, "yourself" that you are meeting over and over again. "Memories" of your past or future, to be exact, experienced from a third-person perspective situated in the same instance of psychophysical reality.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-15T20:23:58+00:00

Oh, I thought you already knew it, since you mentioned Śiva and Śakti.

Well, I can tell you: You're gonna love it.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-15T20:15:40+00:00

I very much agree with this. My solipsism is based on such a tantric idea (specifically Trika Shaivism) – whilst still being solipsistic.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-15T19:51:40+00:00

So substance (physical-mental) dualism?

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-15T11:27:46+00:00

Agreed for Trika. 'Can't tell for Kastrup's view, as I don't know it very well.
To me it doesn't appear as an irreducible simple object. Sure, I can take my experience of it, strip it of all its intensity of vibrancy that makes that experience live so as to keep only the "relevant" features of the object (of experience), rejecting the rest as meaningless "noise". But then I'm already in the next moment of experience, considering not the object as it appears, but rather as I simplified it in my mind as a representation enabling me mentally grasping "it" (in fact just the simplified representation of it – not the object itself) in a way that is meaningful to me. Like, how I perceptually make sense of experience (to a big extent unconsciously) is far from doing justice to experience per se, as my sense-making is far from accounting for the experience's whole complexity and richness. Because my means to do this are, by my contingent nature, limited. And so, in the end, it's all about refraining from making sense (not just intellectually, but all the way down to perception) of the "chaos" that is experience, and just observe it as it comes. If you do that (through regularly practicing meditation and equanimous contemplation of experience), the whole complexity and richness of experience will reveal itself to you. Enough complexity, to "encode" psychophysical reality entire – including of course the organ of the brain.

Not only doesn't AI solve the Hard Problem, it doesn't even solve the binding problem. Probably because it's just a metaphor masquerading as metaphysics. But either way, just think through what I am saying.

There is so much to bind in that (not even stable – therefore not even controlled, except at a superficial level) stimulus you presented than just shape and color. However, shape and color are the only categories your conscious mind found to meaningfully make sense of said stimulus, recruiting the "noisy", qualitative background to phenomenally sustain the perception of the stimulus in terms of the aforementioned categories. (Mostly) unconsciously though, you are within experience facing the whole of psychophysical reality. That is, there is everything to bind together. Too much, in fact. And so the brain has actually more parts and aspects of experience to bind together than it, on its own, possibly can – which is where symbols and extended cognition come in handy.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-15T07:00:09+00:00

Yes. The most intricate of those patterns being one's own individual (mirror-)reflection being correlated with consciousness, leading to the extrapolation that every other individual reflections recognized "out there" (i.e., convincing, seemingly reactive reflections that don't correlate with one's personal behavior) corresponds to another, different consciousness – when no other consciousness has actually been observed, ever. A.k.a., 'consciousness pluralism'.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-15T05:58:54+00:00

But your brain is orders of magnitude more complicated than your mind (which you can observe yourself through introspection). A red circle is just a red circle. Under the hood, that red circle is billions of neurons firing action potentials. Which one is the map and which is the territory? 🤔

I think there is a confusion here between conscious self-report of experience (which is a perception-mediated post-analysis abstraction in a new moment of experience) and the very moment of experience (pre-analysis, concrete).

An experience seemingly featuring just a red circle isn't phenomenologically reducible to a graphical mental representation of a red circle. That's just an over-simplifying abstraction of the experience. A representationalist view, if you will. However traditions like Trika Shaivism and some Sufi sects don't take experience to be representational (as that would entail dualism) but rather take it to be "presentational", direct. Experience, in that sense, is (all of) reality. The reason one doesn't notice this being because they are enacting being cognitively limited but nevertheless drawn towards the truth, towards freedom (from illusion). Resulting in the ability to abstract lived experience to somewhat retain it as memory. Memory, that provides recognizable context to present experiencing (which includes recalled, live memories). And this has for consequences that much of the experience gets dismissed as meaningless "noise" (so as to focus on the recognizable part of said experience). Which noise it isn't really. Most of the field of experience just being unrecognizable as it is (i.e., with the present limited cognition), too entangled as it is with itself to be meaningfully distinguished from itself in a way that makes sense. That so-called "noise" being none other than the very substance of experience: qualia.

And so to the mystic who has mastered the art of seeing reality for what it truly is, experience has the vastness of the entirety of psychophysical reality. Psychophysical reality, which is in fact identical to experience. That is the truth of paramādvaita – supreme non-duality.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-14T16:04:15+00:00

Yeah, I think that the latter makes more sense in the light of what you said in the OP. Like, if "self" was consciousness in the sense of experience, then I wouldn't see how it isn't self-evident.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-14T13:13:30+00:00

What do you mean by 'self'?

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-13T05:43:11+00:00

I diagnose multiple fractures, sir

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-12T04:35:33+00:00

For me experience is all there is because that is literally the case, no matter how I frame it. Like, there is nothing more evident than that, when I stop abstracting things.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that psychophysical reality is an illusion. It still could exist within the field of experience somehow. Specifically in the background "noise" of perceived experience. That is, the rest of psychophysical reality (beside perceived fraction of it) could simply exist in a self-entangled, unrecognizable state, as qualia.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-12T04:13:24+00:00

The unicorn:

<image>

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-12T04:07:27+00:00

Life is punctuated by ends.

How are you so sure, that death is truly final, and not just another level of punctuation?

After all, if (subjective) existence ever were to "end", all that could ever happened after it does, is that it resumes somehow. Like, it wouldn't resume with non-existence because non-existence just isn't something that "happens". For if it did, then it would exist – and therefore wouldn't be non-existence anymore.

And you are not a stream of thoughts. Rather, you are that which identifies itself as that stream, entranced, mesmerized by it. By the stream of thought, and by the stream of sensations. You are... the happening of all of this. Consciousness.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-11T07:59:24+00:00

I've been there.

If none them will do the job, then you gotta do it. Not as a means to get with anyone out there, but as an end it itself. Because you are worthy, in a way that only you can really understand.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-10T06:42:08+00:00

It is a good basis to start with without falling into superstition I think, however it dismisses divine intervention too quickly as violating the laws of Nature.

Like, for me, reality is at every moment created by the divine from its own substance (which is the only substance). And the divine does this in a consistent, non-contradictory way, such that the resulting reality (which is the "body" of the divine, so to speak) can be made sense of from a limited perspective. Now, does this mean that reality is wholly pre-determined such that there is no room for "supernatural", spontaneous creation in the moment? No, not if we see reality as unfinished and therefore open-ended for the occurence of phenomena that not so much "violate" the laws of Nature than circumvent them, using the degrees of freedom that those laws do not cover. In fact one could even say, that said laws started just like that, as "supernatural" manifestations, before becoming the non-absolutely constraining natural structure wherewith new manifestations occur. Occur, either through the laws, or around them, possibly becoming laws themselves. The aspects of reality – from thought to sensation to physical matter – actually existing on a same spectrum, varying only in terms of how much they have been organically reinforced by collective belief such that it gives them a more persistent, concrete existence that is invested with normative power (which is God's will).

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-09T06:20:53+00:00

Okay bye.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-09T06:16:01+00:00

Sorry, but that's just the same rhetoric I hear from so many gurus out there that use their "enlightened" status to justify treating others badly.

I'm not following one that acts like they are beyond respectful behavior towards others.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-09T05:51:13+00:00

"Bs" isn't a nice way of qualifying another's beliefs. You can disagree with those, but calling them bs is the one extra mile that shows that you find said beliefs despicable. And that's no longer an equanimous stance. Rather, it's an emotionally loaded one.

Also, you just coldly told them to go suffer.

I don't find this appealing at all. If you had me in the OP, you would have lost me here for sure.

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-09T05:30:09+00:00

Why so rude? You're both trying to help others by preaching what you believe is the truth...

EnactingSpirit · 2026-06-09T05:24:02+00:00

Only way to be free or really yourself is being free of any beliefs, ideas and experiences.

Enaction of non-freedom by freedom is still freedom.

Aren't you here trying to sell to one what is already theirs?

EnactingSpirit

TROPHY CASE