Mason Riggle

Don't underestimate their perspective. Crazy is a relative word. If they told you how they really see things, you might think they were crazy, and so like the advice given on this thread, they reign it in, closer to the status quo.. they suspect you might 'do something wacky', if they push too hard to get you to see it their way... And so progress is slow, but when we're open to each other's ideas, we find common ground and build our mutual understanding.

I like to think of myself as everything that I don't 'normally' think of as 'myself'. So for instance, many people imagine themselves to be a 'self' who sits somewhere inside their head, behind their eyes, looking out at the world, authoring thoughts, making choices etc.. But when it's realized that 'self' is just relative to 'that which is not self', and doesn't exist 'separate' from it.. I feel like the triangle, which isn't there.. 'the triangle' is just 'everything that isn't triangle'.

My wife thinks I'm crazy, and vice versa, and we're both good with it.

@Leo Gura Leo, would you say that generally speaking, there is a natural progression from 'lower' to 'higher', and so this is sort of what is actually meant by 'lower' and 'higher', and a good pointer to know which is which?? For example, addition and multiplication are two valid 'perspectives', but generally, the natural progression in learning goes from addition to multiplication, and never the other way around, so we can think of multiplication as the 'higher' perspective?

Great video. I don't have much to add. "Any attempt to change what is happening, is just more of what is already happening." - Me and "Voluntary actions happen involuntarily." - Me

The solipsist thinks there is a self, separate from that which is not self, and thinks of the 'other' as imaginary, while he is not. (The dreamer, and the contents of the dream). The Solipsist (with a capital S) understands there is one real/imaginary Everything, and if that's all there is, then he's that. (The Dream itself).

This is very similar to the chicken and egg (which came first?) conundrum (which isn't really a conundrum). Transcending the chicken and egg problem simply requires understanding that there is no separation between a chicken and an egg.. they are the same thing. Isn't there a chicken inside the egg? Isn't an egg just a chicken, wrapped up in a shell? And egg IS a chicken... the same way babies and adults are the same thing... It's a continuous process, so to speak. The 'chicken/egg' evolved to be what it is. Neither 'came first'. There is no separation between 'the observer' and 'the observed'.. they are the same thing. Like the chicken/egg problem, it's a mind fuck, until it isn't, and then it's obvious and simple.

@BipolarGrowth sometimes what seems like a petty distinction is rather important to 'third parties' who may just be reading along, and don't 'already fully well understand'... this creates confusion for them that often requires clarification. In fact, it seems that most 'disagreement' in spiritual debate stems from semantics. It's uncanny how often two people describe the same concept so differently as to think they are describing two different concepts. So often there's a meme about it.

@CBDinfused some language is better than others. The map is not the territory, but some maps are higher resolution than others.

Counter point- We generally think in the language that we speak. There are certain thoughts you can not even have simply because you lack the vocabulary to have them. By being more precise in our language, we can be more precise in our thinking. Criticizing grammar and language isn't necessarily to prevent language from being 'false'.. it's all about creating better maps and pointers. While I agree that it seems rather silly to 'talk to others about solipsism' for example, in reality, it's no sillier than 'talking to yourself' about solipsism. You have no problem 'talking to yourself' without assuming there are 2 of you talking. One area in particular, where the language we think in is very important, is the topic of 'self'. There is a big difference in how reality is understood between an organism that has the thought, 'I am thinking my thoughts', and one that has the thought, 'thoughts are arising'.

How many things might come to exist for me if I experience them?

@Someone here none.

For fun, the word 'experiencing' can be used interchangeably with 'imagining'.

@Someone here seems True in my experience. ? Even to think, is to experience thought. To be is to experience being.

There seems to be much confusion caused by two different notions of solipsism, which are very similar, yet profoundly different. Solipsism 1- there is me, and everything else is imagined by me. I am alone. Solipsism 2- there is me, and I am everything, there is no 'everything else'. I am all one (al-one, alone).

I'm not so much a fan of the phrase 'direct experience'. 'Experience' is all there is, and it's always direct. Whatever is 'being experienced' exists. If a thing can not be experienced, this is the same as that thing not existing. Notice the contradiction in saying, "there exists a bear in your room.. but it can't experience it in any way." Does that bear exist??

By definition, if you're in a psychedelic state, you're not sober. Is it possible that you, God, are tripping balls so hard, you can't tell this is the trip??

@Breakingthewall if you're the only one doing the seeming, whatever seems real to you, is.

Wording can happen in such a way as to not create imaginary dualities. Questions, for example, are great at dispelling dual fantasies. Or sentences like, '______ is neither real, nor unreal.' "Who am I?", imho, 'works better' to eliminate the 'self/other' fantasy, than say, 'You don't exist.', which implies an 'I' who doesn't exist.

@Leo Gura ^this is why it's frustrating as times to hear you say, '______ is imaginary'. It 'creates', in the minds of some readers, a duality that isn't there. And that really matters to me, even if it only seems to.

Nothing matters.. a whole lot.

Consider: is this forum real, or does it just seem like it is? Does it make ANY difference which it is?

excerpt from this article- https://www.bustle.com/p/how-cold-weather-affects-your-brain-according-to-experts-19367014 "Unlike your sweater-wearing body, your brain itself doesn't register the change in temperature in any physical way. “Your actual brain is locked up inside an insulated safe with its own heating system, like radiant floor heating in a ski chalet," Dr. Clifford Segil, M.D., a neurologist at Providence Saint John's Health Center, tells Bustle. He explains that the body's central nervous system, which includes the spinal column and brain, is encased in bone to protect it. Aside from insulating bone, there are also other substances keeping the brain warm: a layer of shock absorption tissue on the inside of the skull called the meninges, and a fluid that runs across the surface of the brain and spinal cord, called cerebrospinal fluid. "The brain is placed inside these structures to keep it a perfect temperature to work," Dr. Segil says." "Freezing someone’s head is not going to result in the brain cooling, though it may cause frostbite on their ears or nose," Dr. Segil says. The brain is very well-protected from the outer world inside the body, even in extreme cold temperatures."

Yes, this point is confused here a lot, I think. real/imaginary <--- Relative (Dual) Imaginary (with a capital I) <--- Absolute (Non-dual) When I dream at night, relative to the 'me' who seems 'real', the contents of the dream are 'imaginary', but they are 'really imaginary' in the same sense that there is 'really' a dreamer. A duality between 'the dreamer' and 'the dream'. The 'me' who seems real, the dream, the contents of the dream... all Imaginary (don't get caught up with the word the way it's used in relative terms, because this 'Imaginary' is as 'Real' as it's ever gonna get). One 'everything/nothing' imagining through 'duality' to be 'something'.