Carl-Richard

I don't see the point you're making. What if the entire universe of form were to end? You would have no form. Yes, and? If you want to collapse the distinction between simultaneously and "one at the time" (essentially you create an infinite singularity), then you can do that, but then it makes no sense to say "only my bedroom exists", because it's the same as saying everybody's bedroom exists. There is no difference between your bedroom existing right now and somebody else's bedroom existing at some other time. Everything that will exist or could ever exist, exists. You seem to want to collapse the distinction, but then you also want to favor the "one at the time" one? It seems like you're almost getting it: you need to collapse all distinctions to get to the absolute. But if you want to start favoring one over the other, then you're back into the relative again.

We're in a situation here in Norway before our election where both the most Right-leaning parties as well as the Left-leaning parties claim to be in the best interest of the common man, of the low earners, students, etc. And it shows that the thing about politics is you can always tell a story. For example, the Right says that cutting the wealth tax benefits businesses which creates more jobs which reduces state expenditures which means you can decrease taxes more and it's a snowball effect. On the other hand, the Left says keeping the wealth tax means you can use that money on for example lowering employment fees which increases hiring and more people get into work which reduces state expenditures which means you can decrease e.g. the employment fees even more and it's a snowball effect. But whether one story is actually better than the other, has to be tested, and then you can decide based on the data. But the problem is that a state is not a science experiment where you can have a control group that isolates the effect of an intervention. And if you let one administration test out their politics and it fails, they will always blame something else: "ah the world economy, the war in Ukraine, the Covid pandemic". So how does one get around this? Are there indeed better arguments for keeping the wealth tax than cutting it if you are rooting for the common man? Or is the image too complex? Also, are there arguments for keeping the wealth tax "in principle", before you look at the data?

@Basman Good that Støre won then. Seems like many of the right-wing voters panicked when the far-right Progress Party were on route to taking the prime minister position had the right-wing won, so they voted Støre instead. So four more years with Labour Party but also with four smaller parties in coalition ("tutti frutti coaliation"), including MDG which I voted. MDG passed the 4% threshold for the first time which is big, as they get many more mandates that way. Also, all the smaller parties are big on green politics, so they might start moving things that way.

Justifying your laziness, that's your problem.

You lost me.

No? All of reality is not limited? Why be this flaky? A limited part of reality is in that particular configuration. The particular figuration is the limited screen of perception, Maya, a product of your limited existence, both your human existence and everything in-between. And for all intents and purposes, all you can know is it's your limited screen of perception (that's the solipsist inclination). But it might very well be that there are multiple limited screens of perception, and also a big screen co-joining all of them. Because implicit in the concept of limitation, there is multiplicity. But that's an inquiry into limitation. "All of reality" is still limitless. "But in that moment", that's the "right here" in your linguistic equation, the regressor signifying limitation. Whichever way you choose to solve it, you have to use a word that signifies limitation, or else you cannot hold on to a solipsistic argument.

He said he was too lazy to Google it. And he also wants to quit smoking 🙉 Roughly 10% of smokers manage to quit in a given year (and roughly 2/3 of adults who have ever smoked have managed to quit). Being in the top 10% of something, that's like getting a B on an exam (in my country at least). It might take some work, and it might be harder for some than others. But simply envision yourself as being in that top 10%, decide that you are in that top 10% and you will do what it takes to be there.

Saying absolute and relative are identical is another thing from saying absolute and relative is identical therefore only this particular configuration of the relative can be said to exist because *insert yet more relative reasons here*. It's a complete red herring move, every solipsist who doesn't merely stop at "it's absolute, that's it" does it. They have some kind of allegiance to materialism or something, that objects exist out there (or rather "right here") independent of our carving out of reality, but because they have learned the word "absolute", it's these objects ("right here") that must somehow be absolute, but that is a complete contradiction of terms. Substitute the "out there" of materialism with "right here", and add a sprinkle of "absolute", and you have this confused absolute-relative conflation solipsism.

Or just stop playing defense for a psychotic team. If you treat solipsism and the absolute as identical, don't let other supposed solipsists get away with "only your bedroom exists".

You are not sitting in a room. That's a conceptual projection. "Room" is a conceptual projection. "Currently" is a conceptual projection. Show me a room, show me a you, show me a "currently". You can't. They are conceptual projections. One thing Zen and Osho got right: people are retarded, don't put so much focus on words, instead hit them with a stick or dead silence.

It also means "only your bedroom exists" @Razard86

🤔 🤔

The picture is inaccurate because you actually laid down your sword and walked away. If (absolute) truth can be threatened, is it really (absolutely) true? 🫢 🫢

God is the highest value.

I used to sit more on benches before, now I do more bench press 🤔

@PurpleTree Why so many benches? Where are the bench press pics?

They use CO2 to make organic compounds (carbon-based compounds) for their bodies (it's their food), and when you burn them, you get some of that out again in the form of e.g. CO2 and CO. But you are smoking tobacco, you care about what's in the smoke.

You can't conceive of CO being a product from the combustion of a plant but you can conceive of CO2? CO is what happens when combustion of organic compounds happens without sufficient oxygen. CO2 is also a poisonous gas.

The trouble begins when you begin favoring any configuration of objects and forms over others, because you cannot ground such a move in the absolute. If solipsism claims "only these objects right here exist, any other objects that are not right here and could potentially be elsewhere, do not exist", you're outside the realm of the absolute. What is mistakenly labelled as "direct experience" by most solipsists is favoring a particular configuration of objects ("right here") over others (e.g. "not right here"). Had they instead treated direct experience as whatever exists before you try to divide reality into what is real and what is not real, then you're in line with the absolute.

Ok, so reality is absolute, reality is One, yes, but does that mean the objects you carve out on the screen of perception are absolute? Does you drawing a line in the sand and giving it a name make it absolute?

Ironically, objects are defined by things external to themselves, just like the internal world is defined by things external to it (the external world). In fact, the external world can be said to be an object to the internal world. So why can't the external world exist absolutely if objects exist absolutely? Nevertheless, you are invoking the same fundamentals for making an external world by invoking the existence of objects. You are invoking relativity. And the relative is not absolute. If not, find me the absolute boundary between the beach and the ocean. Subject and object are one, internal and external are one. Yet "there is no external world". So why not "there are no objects"? In both cases you are defining something external to yourself, external to what is already the case.

Why do objects exist and not exist at the same time, but the external world does definitely not exist?

It might also be his duty to act on his worry. There are smokers who quit and they manage to quit for good.

"The external world is real and unreal at the same time. I don't know how you don't know this lol"

You also say objects exist (as you said in a previous post). Objects are relative. They are defined by limitation. And when you say objects do not exist in an external world, you are imposing more limitations on those objects, which is also relative.