Carl-Richard

But do you eat healthy? Do you know whether your foods lead to inflammation or not?

The energetic signature I have always gotten from the word "solipsism" is demonic.

Banana.

"Oneness" is more authentic. "Solipsism" makes it sound intellectually important. Maybe pedagogy is not for everybody. All I know is it's been hammered into me that you should avoid terms that lead to equivocation in the mind that you're communicating to. Some terms are just so equivocal that even mentioning them causes more harm than they could ever provide in clarity. As repeatedly demonstrated by the OP, as repeatedly demonstrated by other threads (which again "solipsism debunks veganism" is a particularly astonishing example). I do acknowledge it's a statistical thing of drawing a boundary; there is nothing in principle that makes a particular word completely valid or invalid for teaching. I just see trying to bounce the basketball again and again with so little success that it's clear the ball is insufficiently turgid.

You can definitely get yourself there by taking chemicals: I one time took very big doses of magnesium bisglycinate and Vitamin E at the same time (odd combo, I was testing out new supplements during that time), and I was taking my after-breakfast walk and I felt like I had become a zombie, like I had lost all life force. You can also get yourself there by simply not getting enough of the right nutrients. For example vitamin D and B vitamins have a very central impact on mood and energy levels.

I also know that serotonin and dopamine are related to things like perceived status, autonomy, control, and that merely increasing levels of these things in the brain while they can decrease some symptoms, don't usually go to the root of the issue. That depression is most often simply an "imbalance in neurotransmitters" due to random genetic variation is a myth and a simplistic way of understanding physiological systems. All bodies are embedded within an environment and interact with that environment, undertake actions in that environment, and your brain chemistry is a reflection of that. Serotonin and dopamine track extremely directly to things like bodily movement and facilitation and impeding of such movement. An organism that feels impeded in its movement will reflect this in its dopamine and serotonin levels. Depression can in very many ways be looked at as an impeding of movement, especially when that movement is supposed to originate from the person, hence the notions of autonomy and control. On the flip side, if you increase for example dopamine levels artificially (through drugs) or through for example nutrition in people with depression, they might actually develop another problem: obsessive compulsive disorder and general anxiety. You move from being helpless and perhaps hopeless to being proactive, but everything is seen as a problem to be fixed, everything is seen as negative and as a threat. Because if you haven't fixed the underlying issues that cause the feeling of lack of control, you'll still experience that feeling of lack of control, just while being very active about trying to fix it. Fixing organically the sources of lack of feeling of control will increase serotonin and dopamine levels, and the behavior that happens as a response will be in line with the goals and wishes of the person. The dopamine and serotonin will not be used as way the organism turns against itself. If your organism is in a state of disorder and conflict, increasing the energy levels of that conflict might simply give you that: more dynamic and tumultuous conflict.

Sources needed.

If you had chosen to communicate through an ant, the ant would still need food.

How is your diet?

If you're standing on train tracks and there is a train coming towards you, you always have the choice to accept the reality of the train smashing into you. But will you? Depression is from the perspective of the person experiencing it like a train crashing into you in slow motion. Somebody coming along and shouting "accept it!", even if it is theoretically a possible thing to do, is most likely going to be perceived as a joke by the person.

I guess I'll have to leave the forum then. Or make a ChatGPT plugin.

I hope you one day see how childish you come off to the average person.

The point of contention is that senses are thought to be a specific thing, and you can experience a state without sense content, i.e. cessation or the void. The absolute is not a specific thing. It's all things. So when you say "senses are absolute", it's limiting the absolute, thus it's not absolute. "But if all things are absolute, then senses are absolute because it's a part of all things". Yes, in that case, you can call everything absolute and you would make a video on Absolute Spiral Dynamics, Absolute Nine Stages of Ego-Development Theory, Absolute Politics, Absolute Cooking with Leo. But then nothing becomes absolute. What is "the absolute" actually pointing to? It's pointing to an experience of yourself as God. That experience is not the same as the average joe having a taste of ice cream at Costco or whatever; of course, it's not structurally different, because God is again absolute and independent of such structure ultimately. But you wouldn't call that average joe "awake" just because he is having experiences of senses. Heck you even call us not awake, us who claim to having had experiences of God. No, the absolute is fundamentally beyond all that. It's an experience beyond all specifics of experience. It's the totality. So when talking about the absolute, if you're indeed talking about the experience of yourself as God, it would make sense to try to honor that totality, not get hung up in "your senses are absolute" as if that is a point to get hung up on. Unless, you take everything to be equal to senses, even the state of cessation or the void.

Tom Campbell recounting shared out-of-body experiences with his colleague at Monroe Institute back in the 70s. 8:13

Last night, I had a dream that I was being chased by several tornadoes. Then today I read about the tornado incident in Kentucky with an estimated death toll of 100 people, which is the worst tornado event in the history of Kentucky. About two weeks ago, I had a dream where PsychedSubstance got kicked out from his own house. Today he released this video: The night my dad's boss died from drowning, I had a nightmare where I was being chased by a ghost, fearing for my life. I usually never have those types of nightmares. What is this?

It's God when God pulls the blanket over its eyes. Lack of sensation is also God. Are you telling me the void is a sensation?

Yes because Markov blankets are propietary of Siddharta Gautama 500 BC, of course. Tell me, how is a sensation, as distinct from a shape, absolute? Surely, the absoluteness occurs before any such distinction, correct?

The "colors and shapes" you see is your personal dissociation (a part of the Veil of Maya, the Markov blanket), and labelling the colors and shapes as distinct entities is an operation done by the conceptual mind which the ego is a siamese twin to ("conceptual" can technically be task-oriented and "selfless" but also self-oriented as in the default mode network). But it's perfectly fair to use "ego" more broadly to refer to all these things (I personally tend to use "personal mind" for this). Nevertheless, using the term Absolute to refer to any of these things (as isolated limited things), is a mistake.

That's the common cultural conception of the term. That's wrong in the common cultural conception of the term. The only thing that exists in that conception is dependent on limitations associated with the body and related sensory organs like eyes (hence the confusion in the original thread, talking about literal biological eyes as if it matters to an infinite being). The "ego mind" is the subjective perspective and derivations/abstractions of those structures (e.g. thoughts are abstractions of sensations). When a solipsist in the common conception says their experience is the only thing that exists, they reliably refer to limitations of their sensory field (eyes, bodies, positioning), and at the center of this sensory field is not coincidentally their own body and the thoughts that are generally related to that body (the ego mind). The ego mind is a software that accompanies and is created to conserve the body. That software and its projections (objects, distinctions, sense perceptions themselves) is at the center of the common solipsistic conception. Firstly, no, you created a red herring that it was about syntax rather than semantics. Secondly, introducing excess linguistic entities (especially generalizing ones like algebraic symbols that by definition have multiple meanings) and odd unnatural text that breaks with natural speaking patterns (excess syllogistic language) reliably decreases comprehension.

I've said multiple times in here that "God" also sucks as a word when talking to noobies generally. I just think "solipsism" sucks extra hard, again generally. Feel free to explain why you think "God" is more "abused" than solipsism. The larger point is to know your audience. Rupert Spira has a good view on this: 6:44

It does break because you changed the meaning of x. That's the entire point. This entire thing you did here where you tried to retain the syntax between the two different understandings is more or less schizophrenia, just a lot of things irrelevant to the larger discussion. The problem is the semantic meaning is different, not the syntax. Besides, you only chose quite arbitrary sentences. I can retain the syntax for two materialism understandings but they will still be different semantically of course (by definition) which is what the actual problem is: "x is all that exists". Replace it with "matter" (as in the common perception of materialism) or "God" (as in my for-the-sake-of-argument perception of materialism, where also God = matter) and the syntax is retained. Yet of course the meaning of the word "matter" in the two understandings is different, which is again what the actual problem is. Likewise (or conversely), I can try to and fail to retain the syntax between two understandings of solipsism: "x is the only sensory-bound, biologically body-centered locus of experience that exists". Replace "x" with "my mind" and you'll get the common perception of solipsism, replace it with "God" (as in the Cosmic solipsism perception) and the statement is false. Agaiiin, the problem is we're clashing with the meaning of the word in the common cultural perception of it; the syntax of a few sentences is irrelevant. By the way, using algebraic notation in text is another textbook example of a blunder of communication (it's more often needlessly complicated) and a sure way to make yourself think you're saying something insightful but it's in actuality wrong because you've overcomplicated it but you can't keep track of how.

Then you'd like the thread I linked 👀

Train your focus (meditate), increase your energy (e.g. health, nutrition, celibacy), release attachments (deconstruct the self, investigate the sources of thoughts, feelings, tell yourself you'll be fine whatever happens to these things / that you're fine without them).

What argument do you need? It's tautological. The infinite doesn't inform you about any specific limitation. It informs you about all of them, which is limitless. You cannot use the infinite to deduce anything finite. You can only "deduce" all of it.

This is very new stuff.