How the World Creates Itself

[@bejdavies]

If you're new to this channel PLEASE READ! The contents of this video make up a VERY small part of a much larger system. There may be terms, references, or claims that you are not familiar with. I invite you to trust me that all of these things are sufficiently developed and explained elsewhere. A good place to start, if you're interested in this work, would be this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oX7amZ2ZicSBgtE. If you're an academic, or you're interested in a scholarly presentation of this system, please refer to my book linked in the description. If this work resonates with you and you would like to discuss similar ideas with like-minded individuals, you are also invited to join our discord community: discord.gg/d5WB8gTHPK Thank you so much for your time, and I wish the best for you.

[@doctorinternet8695]

1:16 This reminds me of a response to the commom sentiment that "something can't come from nothing", which is to simply ask, "in a state of nothing, absolute lack of everything, what stops something from arising?" The only possible answer is "nothing". If we begin arguing that something can't come from nothing based on empirical knowledge, it fails, as we have no example of nothing to observe, and if we argue based on logic, than that's just a linguisticmust operation, so we have no reason to assume it apply to reality.

[@OldScrewl1928]

Great material, thank you! Would love to see you discuss your ideas with Chris Lanagan and Bernardo Kastrup.

[@dartmonkey000]

for real dude i hope your channel blows up

[@bejdavies]

Thanks man!

[@ATOBanana]

I don't know where you came from all of the sudden.. but I get so stoked to see a new vid from you now. Can't wait for the shape of knowledge to drop.

[@bejdavies]

I appreciate that a bunch. Thank you for being a part of this.

[@edanan99]

A lot of what you say resonates with my experiences. I've long since reached the tipping point you speak of, where separation feels like a denial of reality and takes straining effort to instantiate in my own personal experience. I meditate a lot and also have schizophrenia, both of which are things that lead to disruptions in the ego or sense of self and authorship of one's actions. Nevertheless, I come full circle every now and then back to duality. Almost like an inversion of what you described, where I willingly impose an ego and self onto the oneness of my experience so that I may function in society. Part of it comes from the recognition that duality must be just as real as unity. Part of it is out of uncomfortable necessity, lest I sit and do nothing until I starve. But another part is out of fear. I've seen things that scare me back into believing in God as separate from me and sovereign over me, and feel the need to fight against the chaos of uncreated oneness to conform to and impose a traditional, more or less dualistic understanding and practice on myself, lest I burn in Hell for my daring to equate myself with God. I hope I'm making sense here.

[@miguelatkinson]

Yikes sounds like you have some religious trauma

[@zlizeko]

Your content is amazing. Im will surely buy your book

[@bejdavies]

Thank you so much. I really appreciate that!

[@XYZNY_XYZ]

Was going to buy your book on Amazon but have to wait until next pay, here's the shipping cost that Amazon required😂. You are essentially organizing and explaining in academic terms what the reasoning, logic and emotional values of a lot of people are built on which is something I was never able to remember the totality of by myself. Thank you!

[@XYZNY_XYZ]

Ethos, Pathos, Logos, Deimos & Phobos. Don't let any of them take control of your self.

[@bejdavies]

Wow, thank you so much. That's very kind of you. I hope you are able to pick up the book soon. Shame there is no Amazon in Norway.

[@GhERM2SOIED72]

Exactly: We chose a logical world with physical constants, and we chose all miseries in order to bring about this moment. We are! It is not the end, we can continue to be the world of love, be a world worth living in.

[@DearFellowIdiots]

Good videos. Can i know What is the significance of this real self? Like why we should go after it,if in the end its all nothing?

[@bejdavies]

The significance is that it is reality. It's not _merely_ nothing. And you can't go after it. "Going after it" is to obscure it. Relax, and it will come after you.

[@deanmor7713]

This dude is like the undiscovered 3blue1brown of philosophy

[@gryphonschnitzel7140]

spirit is matter and matter is spirit

[@nessamargaret]

Yin and Yang. There is no separation.

[@Everything_I_Need_To_Tell_You]

I am also doing research on the creation of the self! And the development and evolution of character overtime through every aspect…..your like my pen pal

[@GhERM2SOIED72]

4:48- Only in the sense that all beings must be, persons with powers of conception must be. Data must be.

[@mrsbethaniesmith]

This was fantastic and beautiful! Thank you!

[@bejdavies]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@Ambiguousss]

This video can also be helpful: Let Go of Everything By Meta Sage

[@Seanb33ee]

Wouldn’t a subjective thought affect the physical world because it leads directly to the physical body that has influence?

[@bejdavies]

The subjective thought is correlated with a physiological process, through a kind of psychophysical parallelism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysical_parallelism. But this correlation is not causation.

[@mrsbethaniesmith]

​@@bejdavies I like that idea! Psychophysical Parallelism

[@criticalmystic]

thanks for the subtitles

[@edanan99]

"He who claims to understand quantum physics, doesn't understand it." "He who claims to understand God, doesn't understand Him." At the smallest level, the electron is both a plurality of particles, and a united wave, at the same time. Likewise, in our daily experience we see plurality and unity coinciding at the same time. We recognize the chair as simultaneously one chair, and as its many constituent parts, at the same time. And at the ultimate level, God in practically every religion is understood as one and many at the same time. In Christianity, the Trinity is one Godhead of three persons. In Judaism, God is one being, yet many of His names are in plural form and His angels are understood as simultaneously an extension of Him and as His separate creations, as with the rest of the world. In Hinduism, the oneness of ultimate reality/God is understood as manifesting itself as the many gods. In Daoism, reality itself is mapped as a nondual union of mutually interdependent opposites that manifest as the "Dao." At the deepest Yin is pure Yang and vice versa - they are separate yet united at the same time. It really is the case that physics reflects the nature of experience, and vice versa.

[@pateksky1890]

You ate!

[@edanan99]

@@pateksky1890 from the fruit of the tree of knowledge? But I have already eaten from it from the beginning, and so have you and everyone else...

[@pateksky1890]

@@edanan99 🔥🔥🔥

[@jessicafelipe9988]

beautifully stated!

[@RIPxBlackHawk]

The way this is told, you have to experincially understand the concepts before you understand the conclusions here. It's hard to imagine someone who is just being introduced to these ideas simultaneously being enlightened by the conclusions presented here. From my perspective a more relatable presentation would find more ground to land on

[@coolnimeworld2329]

I understand it and at the same time I don’t.

[@noahbonnet2723]

You exist. It's not a matter of thinking but, being. Experiencing.

[@frankm9529]

This reminds me a bit of Philipp Mainländer, except where he talks about "will" you talk about knowledge.

[@bejdavies]

Interesting. Guessing he's a follower of Schopenhaur? I wouldn't be opposed to using the term "Will", as I'm not really talking about a conceptual form of knowledge, but more like a direct knowing, which is intimately connected to our inuitive sense of value.

[@frankm9529]

@@bejdavies yeah he is schopenhaurian for sure. Havent found a complete translation of mainländer so not familiar enough. The way you talk about evolution and the stop of dividing the world reminds me in some way of how he talks about the willfull death of God and how we must come to the conclusion death is good. Really looking forward to you book 👍👍

[@InfectedEnnui]

yup. 👍

[@entropy608]

I love your videos and the verbalised content is top class. Have you studied Advaita Vedanta, Upanishads and the Brahmasutras?

[@bejdavies]

Not yet. I've been focussed on presenting my ideas through Western terminolgy, to appease the academics. But I'm interested in doing so, and I'll get to it one day.

[@entropy608]

@@bejdavies I think that's amazing. Good for you! From what I understand of paraphilosophy there are some subtle differences wrt the conceptualisation of Nirguna Brahman in the Upanishads. For example, just like Wave & Ocean is nothing but Water however Water need not be Wave. It could be ice! Wave or ocean don't become Water. They already are. Except, they don't know it. 🕉️

[@bejdavies]

Awesome. I do anticipate many similarities. I seem to recall the term "Parabrahman", is that the same thing? I'm also aware of Nargajuna's "ninth view" of the catuskoti from Buddhism, which also seems to be highly related.

[@twa9995]

If the goal was just to be poetic with philosophy than absolutly wonderfully done but if i can speak for people like me and the goal was to show people new ideas then it didnt do an amazing job because it seemed to trade off explaining for poeticness. I love your work

[@johndiss]

This is definitely not for the uninitiated and I prefer it that way. There are plenty of introductory level videos for beginners. This is singular.

[@twa9995]

@@johndiss i do have to agree

[@bejdavies]

Yeah, this is a pretty blunt video. Not really educational. But I will be (am) focussed on education in other videos.

[@roaldkala]

Praise be to know that there is no one to be saved as the outcome is always assured by the grace of all that is and all that is not. Judge not the path another walks for all roads lead to god and all paths shall be realized through your unity with god. Thank you for this wonderful video.

[@bejdavies]

🙏

[@MyWatchIsEnded]

Most believe they are the source itself instead of a manifestation of the source as a seperate 'self'. The test is this; Have you seen the beginning before time and space? Where you there when reality was created from the desire of the source to manifest itself as tangible material reality? Do you know what comes before your birth, all around you in life, and after your death? Do you understand that the manifested self is a shadow of the source and that everyone is a reflection of your inner lens being projected as an infinite series of interchangeable and interconnected patterns of energy, light, mind, and body? Most like to believe that this is the case because they 'feel' like that's true to them despite not having any of those actual experiences or knowledge without being instructed by the internet. The self exists to understand itself and become echad. Everything therein is absorbed and ceases to exist back into the quiet mind of the one.

[@tomculling1525]

So so brilliant

[@bejdavies]

Well thank you kind sir.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

The physical (1D, 2D, 3D) is contingent and less real. The spiritual (0D and the other side of the zero-of yourself) is necessary and more real. Kabbalah says that God's first act for creation was the "self-withdrawal" to allow emptiness/space for creation to take place in. Sounds like God's on the other side of the zero-of yourself. The zero-of yourself would then be the Logos (meaning Word or rational thought). The postulated soul is no spatial extension, zero size and exact location only and quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Seems like they're both the same thing. Our quarks are different than the quarks that make up literally everything else because we have the Logos. Any of this sound legit?

[@GhERM2SOIED72]

Trying to be distracts from being. Omniscience is in not knowing. Let's survive the climate crisis...

[@rubscratch98]

So before we are born we have neither a subjective perspective on the objective. And therefore no consciousness (which is the superjective perspective of both subject and object) but we could have an abjective perspective (neither subject nor object). Is it right to say that we have prior to birth only a subconsciousness? And then during our lifes the duality of subjective and objective creates the self referring paradox of both subject and object ergo the consciousness (or an object that is subject). If we die and "go back where we came from" we loose the subjective perspective and the objective perspective and get to keep the superjective? In other words: we live and experience so that a concious perspective is formed that transcends the world of subjective and objective? And i. The end we will only be the subconscious (as implied by the absence of subjective and objective) plus the created consciousness. No narrative but just pure consciousness

[@bejdavies]

Without any kind of experience at all, the four perspectives are all united in a single paradoxical state. Experience must untangle this paradox in order to understand itself, and thus the perspectives become differentiated. So they all depend on each other, because they are all aspects of a single thing.

[@rubscratch98]

​@@bejdaviesand this is where the fractal nature comes in right? So if all four aspects are in the state of paradox they still lie within the consciousness of the "higher level". Because it repeats in both directions.(or rather the paradox is the superjective of the higher level) So to understand reality we split the superjective in four (sub, ob, ab and again super-jective) so that we can see the duality of the parallel evolving subjective and objective at the same time. Btw. Thank you for always answering my messages. I'm trying to understand this approach and I think I'm inching closer with this interaction (the socratic dialogue used to learn not to disprove)

[@bejdavies]

@@rubscratch98 Sure, that's along the right lines. There's a discord server you can join if you want to discuss these ideas further.

[@rubscratch98]

@@bejdavies i just joined, thanks again

[@JosephReference]

Damn fr

[@rkyrsc2]

.

[@occamlaser]

Oroborous. I cast you inwards to become me.