Carl-Richard

I was going to write "Wim Hoffing it" but it slipped my mind (and fell into yours apparently)

This is what I meant by my dorky distinction between "newly awake" and "more awake". The newly awake gets their feet wet and screams "OH IT'S COOOLD!", "Guys-guys-guys, I just got my feet wet, and its fucking COLD, guys!", "FUCK!". The more awake person is ice bathing silently

There are no others, yet you choose to be arrogant towards them. Because you're interacting with humans while alleging that you're acting in their best interest by being their teacher, a person who is supposed to help them, yet you're being excessively arrogant and hostile, which comes off as repulsive and hurtful to most people, which is not in their best interest, which does not help them. Yes, I know you like to wiggle yourself out from having to answer a simple question by watering down the concept. You did it with rape, you did it with gaslighting. There are truly no limits to your genius Let me remind you that you did make a thread saying you would work on becoming more kind (unless I interpreted it completely wrong). What do you think about actually going through with that? It seems like Leo of all people managed to do it to some degree, so maybe there is hope for you too.

Ah, the pure distillate of Nietzscheanism and Satanism. @Nilsi is this you?

At the expense of others? Why choose arrogance?

I don't think of human conditioning as merely cultural. Every experience you have as an organism conditions you. It shapes how you experience the world onwards. Every experience you have as a human is therefore human conditioning. You can condition yourself to get stronger physically, to eat less food, to sleep less; none of these are necessarily cultural things. But you have a choice. So you want to act like an animal, ok. Why limit yourself to that? What is wrong with just acting civil? I don't see you taking a shit on the floor just because it's uncivil. It doesn't make you more or less awake. Taking shits, talking shit, not taking shits, not talking shit; it's all just human conditioning. Prefering one over the other says something about you as a person, not the Truth.

If you're acting uncivilized, that is still a human acting on its conditioning. If civility is to not harass people by calling them names, then you doing the opposite is still human conditioning.

@Razard86 In the future, if you're going to make a new thread and you're going to talk about solipsism in it, instead of making a new thread, make a post in this thread. This is your solipsism thread now (it's all yours ).

In that case, everything.

PEARBONDING

Are you seriously unironically posting JustPearlyThings content?

You're justifying being uncivil with calling civility a human bias, but uncivility is just as much a human bias. It's just a more pathological form of human bias. If you've fully unshackled yourself from your human bias and are able to choose how to behave when interacting with fellow humans, why choose the pathological option?

It's depends on your epistemic criteria. If you take what is immediately known as the only valid epistemic criteria, you'll be more likely to conclude that there is nothing else than that. If you on the other hand take include the soundness of observations and logical inferences like you do, you'll conclude that there is probably something else than what is immediately known. The problem the "immediate experientialists" have is that we don't use daily language that way, which is why they end up sounding insane when they have to deny basic things like the existence of other people, or a past and a future, at the same time as they're saying things like "you will understand this once you awaken", which contains the very concepts that they're trying to deny. This is made even more confusing when people disagree about what the immediate experience actually entails (how it functions), or how to talk about it, but of course, the most confusing thing is when these people don't acknowledge that they've merely chosen an arbitrary epistemic criteria while claiming that they're absolutely correct in all cases. This is like you say obviously not true, because what about including the criteria about things you don't immediately experience (the unknown)? This is why it's important to qualify your truth claims by stating your starting assumptions, unless you like coming off like a closeminded fundamentalist.

(Just a late-night rant): Destiny never fails to give me the uncanny valley creeps when he starts trying to justify his views on animal ethics. It makes me question his integrity in general, how he can so confidently hold on to something that is so contorted and vile. Actually, you know how libertarians say they're against the government but then go through all these mental gymnastics that just ends up producing something equivalent to a government in the end? That is how I feel about Destiny's "ethical egoism" framework. It's not grounded in what it says it's grounded in. It tries to artificially cling on to a set of presuppositions (egoism) while it handwaves the true underlying values (care for others). It's not even psychopathic, just autistic: anti-social in both senses of the word, lacking in emotional awareness, and a surface level sense of integrity ("consistency"). An overemphasis on consistency is just a tool for hiding a complete lack of grounding, the true meaning of integrity; full self-transparency and having integrated all the relevant aspects or faculties. Destiny is lacking in his emotional faculties, and that is guiding what he considers to be relevant, which explains his psychotic philosophy. This is basically the whole problem: he tries to make egoism compatible with a society that is not based on egoism, hence the mental parkour.

Well don't.

No.

Yet here you are — making distinctions between awareness, visual appearances, sound and physical stimuli.

I came up with a little song about vitamins while I was sick (please bear with me). It goes like this, but I'll replace the word "vitamin" with "solipsist" for this special occasion (please imagine Zack de la Rocha singing it to a funk metal beat, really enunciating the single letters): Feel free to insult me

Holy shit that is some Sam Hyde shit lol

You can point to exceptions, but when you get to furthest ends of the extremes, the exceptions get rarer. That is what I said. The demeanor has to do with their quality as a person. That is what I said. True.

Easy: one entails transcending your limited egoic struggles, the other entails screaming at people because of your limited egoic struggles. But again, these are gliding scales (as I said, it's highly generalized; "newly awake" is still "awake").

Because I don't believe awakening to be a symptom of psychosocial pathology.

I'm really not denying the underlying message he is trying to communicate. I'm mostly concerned with how he is going about it (the aesthetics and the ethics). I'll repeat my two main prescriptions here: 1. if you're going to make distinctions, make good distinctions or don't make any (a.k.a. solipsism is wack). 2. If you're going to help people, actually consider their needs and not just your own (a.k.a don't call people idiots).

I'm going to sound like an absolute dick-o here, but be careful taking spiritual lessons from somebody who has openly stated that he awoke just over a year ago. A year in spiritual time is nothing (that is not a non-dual joke, but a literary device) ;D I'll give you my highly generalized but very frank take on things: the most awake people, are not here. The most awake people who are here are not obnoxiously loud about it. The newly awake people are very loud and/or unstable and/or confused. Everybody except the newly awake people don't like it.

I'm referring to the activity of transcending your humanity