Engouism-The True Path!

**Kscott** · May 29, 2006, 09:47 PM

Well, the term Engouism is simply something a friend and I made up. After learning a bit about the eastern religions we decided to mold our own philosphy. I thought it would be good to run some of our principles past you guys and see what you think. This was all made in boredom really, but I think the psuedo-philosphy does have its merits.

The basic principle of engouism is that perception is the only reality. Thus we only exist because we percieve it. Our percpetion is so strong that it has consturcted an entire world of complex illusions which all serve to further our belief in the false reality. If this is assumed true then infact we don't exist at all, aside from the fact we are fully existant. Thus we reach the great paradox and the core tenet of engousim. We don't exist, yet we do exist. Thus the goal of Engouism is to be fully inexistant so that we can fully exist.

The first critism of this would be that it is construced off pure wild thought, but surely Sidartha had a similiar process when formalizing Buddhism. If you ponder the impossiblity of existance itslef, the fact that we dont exist makes much more sense. Infact, one could argue it is more logical to assume we don't exist than to believe we do. Otherwise one has to account for the begging of existance which has not lead very far. Yes the bif bang tries to explain it by saying life has always existed, yet many skeptics say this theory simply doesnt hold up. The counter argument is this is the most logical argumet as of yet, but i disagree. As said before I think the much more logical conclusion is that we don't exist at all. It all makes perfect sense really if you think about it.

Now convert!

**HMMcKamikaze** · May 29, 2006, 10:14 PM

Oh i know we exist, its just that what we see and what is real could be completely different. They say that the only reasont that time works the way it does is because our brain keeps us fixed in a certain time, but it could be like Slaughter House 5 in reality where time is meaningless because everything happens at once.

**Garbarsardar** · May 29, 2006, 11:28 PM

Not only this is not a reply to your post, but you're not even reading it. Next time take the blue pill. Or cookies and milk.

**Jesus The Inane** · May 31, 2006, 12:33 AM

I agree. I don't think we really exist. It all seems so unreal, you know? daily life... its all so inexplicable. Its all endless. They say the smallest particles are the protons, neutron, and electrons and yet there must be even smaller particles withing those particles... and on and on and on, where does it end? The more one things about existance, the less it makes any sense.

But what ethics can Engouism give us? Surely it must make man live life as spectators? Or perhaps as wild beast?

**Kscott** · June 02, 2006, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Jesus The Inane

I agree. I don't think we really exist. It all seems so unreal, you know? daily life... its all so inexplicable. Its all endless. They say the smallest particles are the protons, neutron, and electrons and yet there must be even smaller particles withing those particles... and on and on and on, where does it end? The more one things about existance, the less it makes any sense.

But what ethics can Engouism give us? Surely it must make man live life as spectators? Or perhaps as wild beast?

Ethics? Well, to be honest, there are no explicit ethics taught in engouism. However, one would be encouraged to respect all other characters in this great illusion of ours as we are all equals. That respect should be carried as far as possible. Following that guidance I think you have about all the morals you need.

**Amorphos** · June 02, 2006, 01:16 PM

How about anti-engouism, that the actual entity is the only reality and our perception is irrelevant! I am therefore it doesn't matter if i perceive that i am- kinda thing.

**Goscinio** · June 02, 2006, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Jesus The Inane

They say the smallest particles are the protons, neutron, and electrons and yet there must be even smaller particles withing those particles... and on and on and on, where does it end? The more one things about existance, the less it makes any sense.

Isn't that precisely what makes us believe we do exist? The fact that we are made of millions of the smallest particles? The fact that we know how we are built? Isn't that pretty solid evidence to prove that we actually are here, alive and kicking?

**Lee1026** · June 03, 2006, 12:37 AM

why is this a problem? Its the illusion reinforcing itself.

Not really, you see. For it to be illusion reinforcing itself, then it would have to mean that we expected for a event to happen, and it did. However, if a small number of scientists expected for something to happen, and the rest of us did not expect for anything to take place, then logically, it would mean that the scientists and the common-folk would see different things. As we all know, however, that is not what happened. In stitutions such as relativity.

If we cant find a viable explanation for existance, then not exisitng makes more sense.

Not really. If you are even dreaming of pulling occam's razor on me, put it away. Having the world be in a stage of illustion would mean that you need one hell of an explanation on why we are having the delusions that we are having. The universe is one large computer - every second, there is a huge number of calculations going on. If the universe is not real, then there would have to be something else carrying out the calcuations. Which means that you would have to come up with something else. Also, the current theories as we have works amazingly well at explaining everything that we Currently, therefore the universe as we currently have understood it is simpliest explained by having the world exist.

**Kscott** · June 03, 2006, 02:29 PM

Not really, you see. For it to be illusion reinforcing itself, then it would have to mean that we expected for a event to happen, and it did. However, if a small number of scientists expected for something to happen, and the rest of us did not expect for anything to take place, then logically, it would mean that the scientists and the common-folk would see different things. As we all know, however, that is not what happened. In stitutions such as relativity.

Your misunderstanding me. I dont have an illusion and you yours. We are all part of the same one, which creates rules and regulations for itself to make it all more believable.

Not really. If you are even dreaming of pulling occam's razor on me, put it away. Having the world be in a stage of illustion would mean that you need one hell of an explanation on why we are having the delusions that we are having. The universe is one large computer - every second, there is a huge number of calculations going on. If the universe is not real, then there would have to be something else carrying out the calcuations. Which means that you would have to come up with something else. Also, the current theories as we have works amazingly well at explaining everything that we Currently, therefore the universe as we currently have understood it is simpliest explained by having the world exist.

Nope, your complicating something. There is no super computer or even dillusions. Simply nothing which fools itself into being something. Not really complicated, just got to look at it the right way. And the big bang doesnt really hold weight. Im sorry, but it doesnt.

**Lee1026** · June 03, 2006, 05:40 PM

Your misunderstanding me. I dont have an illusion and you yours. We are all part of the same one, which creates rules and regulations for itself to make it all more believable.

So there is this mega-illusion that branches out, eh? Which, of course, means that deep down, we should all know what every other person is thinking. We know that this is not true. Therefore, it is false. Also, it is notable that in the real world, delusions are generally quite consistent on the surface, but falls apart in close examination. Our universe is the opposite, which suggest that your theory falls.

Nope, your complicating something. There is no super computer or even dillusions. Simply nothing which fools itself into being something. Not really complicated, just got to look at it the right way. And the big bang doesnt really hold weight. Im sorry, but it doesnt.

Not really. Let us examine the effects of me pressing a key on the keyboard - a force is transmitted from the electrons in my hand to the electrons on the key, which repulses each other. Which means that the key goes down, and then it hits a sensor, which then transmit it to the computer, and then it goes on the screen. The giant calculator comes from the idea that the universe is keeping track of all of these little changes and forces everywhere. If there is no universe, then something else would have to be keeping track of it. Also, the big bang theory holds a remarkable amount of water. Care to point out a few flaws? Also, your entire arugment rest on the fact that there is no explanation for the universe being here, therefore it does not exist, which means that you are resting on occam's razor. Now, occam's razor dictate that the theory with the least amount of assumpations is the prefered one. Let us look at the two theories:

1. Universe exists.
Assumpation: Universe exists.

2. Universe don't.
Assumpation: A mega-delusion that apparently acts like a unix machine in keeping everyone out of the other's minds, a supercomputer somewhere keeping track of everything, a delusion that is unlike any that we have ever heard of, and beings that can have a delusion without any basis in something solid.

Which one have more assumpations?

**Lee1026** · June 04, 2006, 11:51 AM

Yes, yes, we are part of the illusion in a way that is roughly analogus to a bunch of user accounts on a unix machine. We all have to follow the machine's rules, and we can't access each other's files. Got it. Anything else?
Also, you need some proof that the world don't exist. If there is no proof either way, then it becomes an occam's razor problem. Then having the universe existing is the much simplier explaination.

**mongoose** · June 05, 2006, 12:36 PM

Something must not be clear. We are part of the illusion. As I said we dont exist. If the illusion had us knowing what eachother thought it would loose credibilty and people would stop believing. The illusion makes a seemigly real world with laws. Everything in the illusion must follow its laws else its credibilty would cease to exist. Then the fabrics of this thing we call existance would be undone and we would go back to non-existing. By not existing I think we would actually reach a state of true existance.

The problem here is that you're still not proving the claims for this new religion. Then again, if it were proven, it wouldn't be a religion.