There is a point of view that is fundamentally uncompromising, and most people think that this kind of sadness is a bad thing, but I think it is a good thing.

On the basis that none of these basic points can be compromised, there is simply no way to discuss it. All we can talk about is the weather. All the characters want is to strengthen the character through chatting. For example, the character's story, the character's past, the character's honor, etc.

And I just want to talk about slashing.

How many more times do you have to say it?!The character has nothing to do with me, and the character's thoughts, words and deeds are all things that I don't know. I'm just aware of the content, not that I'm controlling it.

I'm still thinking about how to explain the continuity of thinking and the manipulation of thought, as if I can think whatever I want. There is an explanation, because I am that awareness, so everything about the character will be perceived. And that awareness is everything, so even things like time belong to that awareness.

Then, when a certain picture is perceived, that awareness naturally turns this image into a memory, and then conjures up another picture again. One of the key points is that these perceptions are not based on time, not conventional thinking like what has been done in the long river of time.

For example, the non-delayed response of a computer is an act that takes place on top of time. And the illusion of that awareness is the illusion beyond time, or rather, it is the awareness that transforms the thing of time.

But this explanation is just speculation, trying to figure out what the mind is really all about. However, I can't figure out what this is all about, because any explanation is a forcible association. Just like a reasoning game, the clues are there, and whoever can explain each clue reasonably is likely to be the truth.

Why reason? Correlating the perceived images with the assumption that "I can figure out this transfiguration, and I'm sure there is a transfiguration here." ”

Can this hypothesis be proven?

All I can find out is how I think these images are real. It's like I've been seeing a body in the picture of awareness, so I assume that this body is me and that it's real.

But how do I find a way to transmogrify?

Moreover, there is a hidden assumption in this so-called transfiguration method, which is that "the memory in my head is correct", because only in this way will it be meaningful to find out this transfiguration method.

For example, I think the memories in my head are correct, I have a childhood, a youth, and a present. Even though these are all false presentations, I wanted to find out how that awareness conjured up these falsehoods. ”

However, it is entirely possible that there is no past at all, and the memories in the mind are not correct in the slightest. So, how can I, who only exist at this moment, find the so-called way of transfiguration?

Because I think the memory in my head is correct, I want to explain the continuity of the mind and how I moved from that position to this position.

Look, the problem is destroyed. A question based on a myriad of assumptions, even if it is claimed by the whole world to be the ultimate problem, once you find the hypothesis of the problem, it will feel very nonsense.

Like, the assumption of "who am I" is "I am a person", which is why questions like "who am I" are asked. If I were to answer, the answer would be "I am not human."

Come to think of it, it seems that this negative answer is unsatisfactory, but it can only be answered this way.

Suddenly I remembered the Buddha's bill, a knife is not out of the sheath, where is the blade?

You can't say that the blade is in the scabbard, because you don't know about it. All you can say is that the blade is not on the outside, and you don't know if it's inside the scabbard. The so-called "what is not on the outside is naturally on the inside" is just a distortion in the mind.

The full expression is, "In my limited knowledge and humble cognition, I believe that the blade is not on the outside, but naturally on the inside." ”

What else is there to say about this limited view? Isn't there any other possibility? For example, the blade is in another dimension, such as the blade space technology of aliens. Yes, you can say that these are extremes, but you can never deny the possibility.

Denying these possibilities can only make life smooth and make it easy for the characters to understand the world. But it doesn't mean that these simple, convenient and easy explanations are true. Nor is there any reason why these explanations should be clinging to and not allowed to be destroyed by anyone.

It's called "it's nothing" and you can't say "what is it...... Is it?

I don't know, this is the answer, why can't I accept this answer? For thousands of years, countless philosophers have tried to explore the true meaning of life, and various theories have been ups and downs. Idealism, Materialism, Objectivity, Subjectivity, Dualistic Idealism, Thing-in-Itself, Subordinate Attributes......

Look at those famous philosophers, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, Jung...... There are too many to count, and any person's book is a thick one. How much of this is speculation? How many of these plausible explanations are there?

Those speculations and explanations must be very reasonable, otherwise they would not have become world-class philosophers. However, a guess is a guess after all, a guess that has no proof at all. Moreover, the result of forcibly distorting things is that they cannot see the state of things themselves.

Aware of this, so it can only be like this, why should we control and explain? Is it a big mistake to admit that I don't know anything? Or do all the characters have to make some reasonable explanations because they don't agree with the answer "I don't know"?

We can only see the secondary properties of the object, and we cannot know what the object itself looks like. I don't know what this is about, why assume what an object looks like, and why admit the assumption that objective things really exist?

In other words, since it is impossible to recognize the appearance of things themselves, then it is over, and what is the theory to be discussed on the basis of falsehood?

All the images are just the elements that are perceived at the moment, and there is nothing wrong with them. Including this part of the body, it's just the content of the picture that is perceived, is there anything wrong?

The character wants to control, the character wants to possess, but the so-called role is only a perceptual element of the picture. It's like a painting with a part of the body painted at the edge, and it seems that the world is seen through this body. And this body wants to occupy other views of the picture, such as houses, trees, and so on.

It's funny.

What can the character control? And what can I control?

If that awareness can control and have the same view of good and evil as the character, will the world still be like this? The character is just an element presented in the picture, what kind of control and possession can we talk about?

Unfortunately, I'm still clinging to my mind and believing in the distortion in my head.

Woe!