Vibroverse

Good question. Our minds work similarly, hahah.

You have reached really good insights and understandings, but i gotta tell you that this is actually just the visible part of the iceberg. There are levels of understanding which both transcend and include what you have realized. This is like a subset of a subset of a subset of the deeper and broader levels of understanding, meaning, even though everything you said is true, the way you interpret it is just one possible subset, one mode of thought.

Well, how to know where that concept has been derived, it can be dated back as far as it gets. I mean, if you look at the concept in an etymological way, it is a combination of solo and ipse, and those terms have been used in latin, thousands of years ago. You know, language, in my opinion, is a conventional thing. There is no such thing as what a word "actually" means. That term solipsism gets its meaning from the users of that term. It might mean something else in this forum, and another thing on, say, askphilosophy on reddit. But in general western academic philosophical conveniences, solipsism is usually used in a way where it means you as the personal mind are the only mind and only being that exists, and we, as other minds, are not actually conscious. The term that often is used to describe what you are trying to mean is monistic idealism, or terms like universal consciousness, as philosophers like bernardo kastrup use it to mean.

Don't get so soaked in ideas like law of attraction and so forth.

Law of attraction is trippy.

As i heard, your rewards have been sent to your address, but they say that you're not home.

That guy named ChatGPT seems to be a pretty wise fellow.

That's what i was referring to anyways, you've just explained the joke, the gist of what i was trying to say, so duhhhh.

People usually focus on the concept of difference in Deleuze, but they, in my opinion, miss that the concept of repetition was as important for him. The dude was a huge fan of Spinoza, c'mon.

Explanation of explanation of explanation. Of explanation of explanation. Of explanation.

Well, it depends on how you define concepts. Deleuze, for instance, would be closer to the idea that philosophy is some sort of an art than Carnap.

Just because your experience is what you have direct access to does not necessarily mean that then it is the only thing that exists. It might be the only thing that you have direct access to, but why should it necessarily mean that then it must be the only thing that exists? You might say that it is the only thing that i know certainly exists, but again, why do you assume that your knowledge of something is the main criterion for the realness of something? You might have born in a way, for instance, as a blind person, then you would not be experiencing the realness of sight, but that would not mean then there is no such thing as a possibility of sight, if you know what i mean.

Let's see how long will it take for you to start doubting it again.

I think there is some sort of an external reality, but it is mental, or energetic, in nature. Reality being mental in nature does not necessarily mean that we as limited minds are the entire reality. There, for instance, is a magnificent order and intelligence that is underlying reality from which my conscious mind is not responsible, in a sense, if you know what i mean. There is a greater consciousness of which i'm only a part, a wave of the ocean.

Neoplatonism and Hermeticism.

I'm a fan of Abraham and Bashar. Even though i have some doubts and questions about what channeling actually is, and some metaphysical questions, i think channeling might be a real thing. And even if it is not, the information that comes from those beings are definitely pretty profound and coming from a pretty deep understanding of reality, even though i'm not clear about some aspects of it.

Shift to a parallel universe where you are a woman.

Let your thinking be guided by your feeling, by your inner senses, in a sense, and then you may begin to get a glimpse of what leo is talking about. Study mystical philosophies, perhaps, that might help you get a grounded understanding.

I love it, i definitely wanna read the completed version of this.

Yeah, i pretty much agree with that, and it might be a helpful contextualization.

Yeah, definitely a pretty smart and interesting guy from whom we can learn, possibly.

Yeah, if we look at it from a deeper level, i think both biological facts and sociological facts are constructs of the mind, but it is that reality is constructed by emergent levels of thought where, we might say, biological facts are more grounded than sociological facts. We see that different sexes as biological entities are relatively more universal than different genders as sociological entities, that are more particular forms of the underlying idea. There, i think, we can talk about the different intentionalities of consciousness if we would think of it as a teleological process. The mind holds those ideas together within itself as different modes, or different levels, of being where mind recognizes itself, as a result of being an other in relation to self that others itself within itself. And through this neverending otherness, the self explores itself as the difference that builds itself as the process. Mind, through the construct that we call thought, finds itself in the process of analyzing and deconstructing itself, and thought becomes the means, by being the self intuition, thought which mind knows itself in the form of being other than itself. And then thought becomes the process of intuiting itself where that self intuition becomes the ground "onto" which what we might call thinkingness builds itself. Being and thought, in the process of knowing itself as that which is the self knowledge of itself, becomes the understanding of meaning, and meaning, as a self expressing expression, discovers itself as language that becomes its own domain that is expanding "within" itself.

I heard that he was friends with Swedenborg and was pretty open to mystical ideas, but later on he backed away from that possibility thinking that such things are just wishful thinking.

I find Jung to be a pretty deep and awakened thinker also, but maybe i'm projecting my own biases on him, i don't know. I especially find the idea of shadow work pretty helpful, and his metaphysics also seem to align with the metaphysics of mysticism, if we can read into him. But on a deeper account, i don't even know who i am, let alone knowing who Jung is ??

I also see truth and bliss, or love, as one and the same. Everyone mostly explained it through the Vedantic formulation on this thread, and i will try to explain it through a Sufi formulation. Islam, etymologically, comes from the root terms of peace and surrendering, selam and teslim. The idea is surrendering your personal will to the will of God, and it opens itself you up to the truth (enel Haqq as Hallaj said), and with it comes the deep peace. Sufis call God "Love" and "Beloved", and He is the source of being where, the ocean, where the drop discovers that his being is but the dance of the ocean, and that is experienced as ecstacy, fulfillment and love. God wants to know himself, and that's why He emanates from Himself, as a result of an explosion of Love, and becomes the world and the human, as caliphs and manifestations of Love, where the One gets into the experience of time and space, and of realizing Himself. The Truth, or Haqq, is one of the names of God, and in the form of human, He is always in a relationship with Himself, and the more the human manifestation of His surrenders his personal identity, and selfishness, the more the more the name of Haqq and Compassion, or Love to think of that name in another way, opens himself up to Himself. That's why peace, love and truth open themselves up as the experience of the human as the human recollects the knowledge of God being his inner self, with him always. That's what i've been inspired to write for now, maybe we can expand on it, more extensively, later on.