Understanding Your Existence

The world is not as you experience it. The world you experience is your world.
Books: "A Minority Interest" can be found on Amazon.
Patreon Channel: / martinbutler
Twitter: / martingbutler

[@ShadaeMastersAstrology]

After many years of optimism and expelling tons of energy inefficiently, I hit a huge brick wall at about 33 years of age. That wall cannot be climbed or torn down with my past ways of viewing the world(forced positive thinking, codependency, victim mindset, trusting in power outside of myself to superficially act on my behalf etc.) I’ve experienced the most painful realizations these past 2 years. Your videos are very useful in helping me gain a deeper degree of understanding on how to better navigate reality. Thank you for taking out the time to teach people such as myself for instance who were ill prepared, nevertheless desire to make better life choices.

[@Xanadu2025]

The idea that the self is an illusion is a logical fallacy, because a self is necessary to experience an illusion. Illusions don’t exist in a vacuum.

[@kludgedude]

“Conspiracy against the human race” ain’t bad either

[@arielrochin2567]

Terror of the situation can be uncover, not good for the masses.

[@garbo1560]

Very glad I found your channel.

[@leosharman8630]

We see a representation of a tree OK, but there is still something there that we interpret as a tree, otherwise, my friend would not also see a tree, but he does.

[@MartinButlers]

Of course. But you have no idea what it really is.

[@leosharman8630]

Agreed.

[@michamichalak6200]

@@MartinButlers I think language creates some problem here.

[@graciegg24]

So, we're in some kind of cosmic video game with real skin in the game. I say real because we do feel physical pain and pleasure. The mechanics are interesting, however, I find the why of it all much more seductive. Especially the relationship aspects between the players, the emotional messiness, neediness, and self self centered perspective of humanity. There's so much more than meets the eye on all the levels of the game. Truth be told, much of the time these days I'm bored with it all, and I find people and events to be quite formulaic...including myself!

[@MartinButlers]

If you want to understand human nature read Spinoza's Ethics Part 3 - you probably won't be bored.

[@graciegg24]

@@MartinButlers I'm on it! Thank you, your video talks have certainly helped me not to fool myself ... not too much anyway!

[@arielrochin2567]

The majority of " my minions " find more delight when they are expose to Gurdjieff legacy..Not too much intellectually like those German thinkers..no offense..

[@prometheus1111111]

What Kant, Hoffman & Metzinger are saying seems right on target. The problem is people who reach rare certain non linguistic states where there is no time, experience a flow and don't encounter hardly the problems the former mentality of simulated consciousness is always running into. This puts the language-based mind we are saddled with into serious question as an evolutionary improvement (and the validity of evolution theory along with it) . The representational mind that produces the simulation actually functions much more like a governor on a car. It limits potential just like so many other things an aware person notices are being intentionally introduced by design into society and life. If more could follow this line of reasoning a new door of possibility may likely appear.

[@awakeenlighten2298]

Hi Martin!

[@leosharman8630]

Those quotes are taken out of context. I've read 'The will' and what Scopenhauer says, more particularly, is that the world is will and live a representation of that will, NOT that there is just nothing. if you thought about it for a moment you'd realise that wouldn't make any sense.

[@MrDannyg77]

I’ve often had these ideas as you’ve explained and have wondered how much different would other non Homo sapiens sentient beings from other worlds might ‘see’ their own construct of their desktops.

[@sophiafake-virus2456]

Why a painting of an imaginary object?

[@kludgedude]

Is there a “real world out there”?

[@Tara-cq8mk]

After really understanding all this, is there anything you judge in this world? Anything/anyone at all? Even just for fun?

[@pirupami9746]

Look up James Scotmore. Most of his content is thought provoking, in more than one type of way.

[@alexcharles2715]

Philosophy doesn't do you much good, neither does intellectualism. I see people reference authors and thinkers, and I smile. At least one this is for sure, more people are curious these days. More people are asking, or thinking, or interested in learning, the deeper things of life. Does anybody remember the pre-covid world? Extremely busy and disinterested in anything of depth. It was all motivational speakers and seminars and opinions and more motivation. Remember? Now a lot of people are spiritually inclined, more attentive to the earth, to what's really happening around them. But do you get what's going on here? Okay, hang in there. It's not more philosophy and intellectualism you seek- it's the truth- and it's coming to you!

[@nicholascurran1734]

If there is no time in the real world, how is survival in the simulated world relevant to being in the real world?

[@fluentpiffle]

There is not 'time' as we are conditioned to believe in it, but just the motions of existence, that we currently measure with the human invention of 'time'.. This may not at first seem like much of a distinction, but the necessity comes from existence being infinite as opposed to finite.. Infinite is by FAR the most plausible explanation, even though the current 'mainstream' theories parrot 'finite'. This leaves them constantly chasing what is thought to be 'beyond', or trying to cling desperately to erroneous ideas by inventing things that do not exist to 'explain' themselves.. Whereas all the infinite understanding requires is that we accept 'what exists' without the need for a 'beginning'..And really, why is a 'beginning' necessary when even the 'standard model' is telling us that energy can neither be created or destroyed? Genuine science is most concerned with plausibility and necessity, where the current 'mainstream' most certainly isn't! spaceandmotion

[@nicholascurran1734]

@@fluentpiffle I still fail to see how time inside is irrelevant, while affecting things outside. I'm open to many things, but your explanation is vague to me, and so is my view of your understanding. If there is more to say in less, I'm listening. I question for clarity's sake, not argument.

[@fluentpiffle]

@@nicholascurran1734 Our current measurement of ‘time’ is not irrelevant, it just isn’t complete. It is not based on an understanding of reality. We should also be aware that it does take ‘time’ for our minds to adjust to new levels of information.. You will need to think a lot about what ‘infinitude’ actually means, and there is very little genuine information on the subject so you will also need good intuition.. Spinoza helps us on the first rung of the ladder.. "No two or more substances can have the same attribute and it appertains to the nature of substance that it should exist. It must therefore exist finitely or infinitely. But not finitely. For it would then be limited by some other substance of the same nature which also of necessity must exist: and then two substances would be granted having the same attribute, which is absurd. It will exist, therefore, infinitely." (Spinoza)

[@josefk332]

Why do we need to introduce the duality of ‘a real world’ and ‘a simulated world’. Why not just think of our view of the ‘real world’ as just one perspective of it that is equally as valid a perspective as any other. And that perspective is formed, amongst other things, by the constitution of the viewer.

[@ciararespect4296]

@@fluentpiffle all substances are the same. For example carbon dioxide binding with oxygen and carbon. They can't make another substance?

[@Rhimeson]

I enjoy your content Martin but you should read Why Material is Baloney by Bernardo Kastrup, he makes a convincing case for idealism and that there really is a mental world out there. His theory helps solve the hard problem of consciousness, and gives a place for qualia "out there" in the universe. He has also done many interviews on youtube, discussing his ideas in depth.

[@pandawandas]

pretty sure he's read kastrup

[@Doctor.T.46]

Kastrup talks as much nonsense as Martin.

[@tonyburton419]

Helpful explanation of Hoffmans ideas. Was he a dualist? Did not Schopenhauer claim we can have glimpses into the Noumenon?

[@lucidus3371]

I would go with some form of idealism, or a scholar's form solipsism. Things appear to be distinct in reality small things are bouncing around, I say reality is one body and many different attributes. Like a table with a multitude of colors can be said to be one thing despite graduation In color, there could be more than one logically truthful way describinh things, all that matter is logical consistency and proper definition for it to be considered legitimate, or some higher approach, sometimes I ask a question, not for an yes/no answer, but to widen the scope of vision.

[@lucidus3371]

I read like 20 philosophy books, but I probably have to read Plato, Hume, and slowly move my way towards kant, and beyond. Take note etc. I think there are not going to be some knock down argument, but it would be good to have a higher order view.

[@Doctor.T.46]

Can I suggest you study philosophy by topics rather than just reading the work of a single philosopher at a time. By studying topics you get a balanced view from different perspectives. Then you can decide which school of philosophy you want to follow.

[@Doctor.T.46]

By the way Plato's dialogues are great reads, especially the Meno.

[@AlchemicalForge91]

Spinoza's God is an illusionist... a very clever but in time, predictable mechanical and mental engineer. The only way to keep the RPG going is to eliminate all players periodically to refresh the interest in some minuscule new patch or download.

[@Doctor.T.46]

You really don't understand the philosophy of reality. You acknowledged one view of reality...wrongly. Your understanding of reality, philosophically speaking is limited. Idealism is not as readily dismissed as you do..it's a fairly well accepted set of philosophical beliefs. You say brain isn't mind but quote a scientist who says it is just that. A word of advice if I may my friend. If you're going to delve into science and philosophy, make sure you understand both. Also, taking short, out of context quotes to support your thesis, makes me smile and reminds me of my long past undergraduate days. You clearly don't understand Kant, perhaps you should be brave and do so. Some of us have.

[@Doctor.T.46]

@@VictorHugo-ph5bw interesting comment that needs explanation before any response can be made.

[@Doctor.T.46]

@@VictorHugo-ph5bw And best wishes to you my friend.

[@Doctor.T.46]

@@keith5517 Reasonable response Keith...certainly a debate worth having. Thank you.

[@tmuxor]

@@Doctor.T.46 Those comments have been deleted unfortunately.

[@Doctor.T.46]

@@tmuxor Thanks...I wonder why that would happen???

[@fluentpiffle]

Answers are commensurate with the quality of the questioning.. spaceandmotion