Carl-Richard

"X, therefore y", is logic. Nothing special about it. Leo's logic also relies on assumptions. There is literally zero difference. It's just that you want to challenge the assumptions in one case but not the other.

No, you are. The point is the logical deduction, justification, relies on assumptions, and these must be evaluated.

Only what I see is real. Literal checkmate.

When I look around, I only see flat, therefore the Earth is flat. Q.E.D.

You can also "prove" the Earth is flat.

Lol. "Proving solipsism" in any absolute sense is another naive fantasy. Outside the absolute (which depending on the person explaining it, "Absolute Solipsism" ironically is not), you can only provide justification. And then it's up to how you evaluate those justifications. And that lays the basis for comparing different justifications. For example, if you spend 5 paragraphs saying something you can say in one, or you're able to explain more things with less, that could be one criteria.

Is context just one thing? Does it not depend on the context? 😛

This is where "sprint at 95% intensity" comes from. You want to tap into the innate flow of your body, which sometimes requires pulling back so you can feel it.

That's how you define "your reality" (interesting loophole for equivocation by the way; we're talking about reality, not just "your" reality). Instead of doing the linguistic tap dancing that you inevitably have to do to justify solipsism without being a lobotomy patient, i.e. "only 1st person appearances are real", "inferences based on appearances which you very intuitively want to call real (e.g. probabilistic scientific "laws") are just constructed on the fly like in a videogame", I just prefer to say immediate appearances is one thing, inferences based on appearances is another. Both can be said to have a reality, in that you give them a lot of solidity, a lot of epistemic weight. To try to reduce words down to single things, be it "reality is appearance", or to claim incessantly that "reality is definitely solipsism", is just intellectually naive, inelegant, and narcissistic, dare I say solipsistic. I'm not very interested if you can justify solipsism. I'm interested if you can make it seem better than other alternatives.

Male attraction is like you remove layers and attraction only rises 😶🤣

That's some female attraction shit right there.

Be careful what you wish for. Try writing as if you're creating an infographic for collective transport, which old people, young people and people with dementia and language difficulties are the most likely to understand.

The man has worditis, and the only prescription is concepts.

@Yeah Yeah Here is a trolley problem for solipsists who think only their bedroom exists: Imagine somebody kidnaps you, flies you to the other side of the world and carries you to some train tracks. Before the plane, you spot a lever. And as they tie you to the tracks, the kidnapper says "I will travel back to the lever on the other side of the world. If you scream 'pull the lever' enough times, I will pull the lever and you will survive. If you don't, you will die". Will you scream to pull the lever or not?

Tha heeell

Ask where it's coming from.

Yeah. Anyways. The injunction in the picture was "if you're enlightened, why do you smoke?", framing it as an attachment. But that is to mistake attachment. Cyclical behavior (which is the very basis of physical existence, where smoking is only one example) is not attachment. Attachment is identifying yourself with a behavior. If you're not identified with the actions your body takes, you're not attached. And if you are very identified with not smoking, that's attachment, hence the reply. Maharaj smoked, Jan Esmann drinks pepsi, those are funny examples, but you can expect that all gurus eat (unless your name is John Cena - I mean Babaji) and eat roughly the same foods as they always have, that they wake up in the morning and put their feet down on the same side of the bed, brush their teeth with the same toothbrush, put on the same clothes, just as they did before enlightenment. Enlightenment happens while hitting the ground running. It won't stop the entire train of karma, of physical reality, dead in its tracks. It just loosens some aspects of karma, the more psychological ones.

Why change? Why should you not smoke?

What's self-deceptive about it?

"Stretched and torn into a new creation" - Meshuggah - Spasm, a song which someone has said is about Kundalini Kriyas, but I think it's probably just about epileptic seizures.

Prarabdha karma 😉

I wrote "health is about keeping things stable" earlier, but I erased it (seemingly so you could write it 😂). A psychic connection a day keeps the doctor away 🤣

Eckhart Tolle was suicidal when he awoke. Extreme fasting tends to increase meditative ability, not decrease it. People who're dying from ill health typically enter expanded states of awareness. I think we underestimate what is possible if you let go of completely everything, and what time and attention can do to you. What is mostly holding you back is not health. It's your goals, your attachments, what you occupy your time with. If you let go of everything right now, you will be enlightened no matter how sick you are.

How many hours a day must be spent doing nothing? Leo is on that modern sage grind, which arguably requires you to do shit. However, an enlightened man doesn't need to spend time doing nothing, because he's already doing nothing in whatever he does.

Because your intelligence and knowledge is finite. Only God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. IQ is defined by the test, and it's generally about finding visual patterns and rotating shapes in your working memory while under a time constraint. So faster working memory and greater working memory capacity naturally loads bigly on IQ. Intelligence is contact with reality. What is the level of engagement, what level of detail, of profundity of experience, are you capable of?