Carl-Richard

As for posting a video people should watch, this was once posted by @Mellowmarsh but for some reason the page it was on no longer exists. It deals with the subject of philosophies and convenient fictions in relationship to the absolute. I disregarded it as obvious when it was first posted but when I look back, like the podcasters, I can see that I wasn't always in the same boat and that it was due to a development (particularly my education in university, both due to the actual courses and the timing of when I took them, which fortunately helped me touch on those topics perhaps more directly than most). I remember I once refrained from talking about solipsism exactly because I knew that most people probably wouldn't have had that same development but at some point I just stopped caring much about that. It also goes into the common pre-trans conflation that @AtmanIsBrahman likes to make about me: that because I like to be rigorous philosophically, I must not know what I'm talking about or I'm "stuck in rationality", ironically in response to a post where I'm calling out the limitations of rationality.

"We've seen a big increase in thefts around this neighborhood, is there perhaps time to do something about it?". — "But what about the increase in insurance fraud?" We'll tackle that too. I have a hierarchy for dealing with fuckedness; I've spoken about cases where I don't use the word "God" for example. I would in fact claim many people on the forum use solipsism to have the ultimate form of metaphysical self-copulation.

Our buddies over here will point you to the basic spirituality videos you perhaps have watched 10 years ago.

You can disagree with the arguments for why it's culturally fucked, no problem. It's not an "I'm right by logical necessity" kind of argument. It's a "is your cup filled beyond the brim with this or can you stomach it"? It's perhaps more a political argument than anything. "We've seen a big increase in thefts around this neighborhood, is it perhaps time to do something about it?".

The religion of Leo goes way beyond solipsism, we all know that. I've made my case for why solipsism is culturally raped, you can address those points if you want. If you disagree that it's a word and not the literal Absolute, you can say why. And if you disagree that worm-brained Absolute-relative conflation behavior circles that very word as exemplified by this thread and perhaps the magnum opus of "solipsism disproves veganism" (real thread), you can say that as well. Whether or not you personally like to use the word as a responsible adult with half a brain is up to you.

@Willy Phallicus My final clown show was about showing how solipsism is a word while some people make it into a metaphysical holy grail that putatively explains everything you can perceive in the universe and that any alternative word or formulation or lens is illusory untrue non-truth non-trueness. And to then respond to the assertion that the only way I would hold such an opinion is if I had no experience myself and need to go back to non-dual kindergarten and chew kitchen cloths for a few years. Don't conflate that with the other show where I tried to argue that it's a culturally raped word.

Please watch, the madness starts at 3:00 (current timestamp is for lead-up) and ends at 4:39 (not really but that's the moment). I started howling "noooooooooooo" when I realized it.

Just trying to make it blindingly obvious and underscoring the circus that is going on.

Maybe you're not yourself cognitively challenged enough to go on a 50-paragraph long logical deduction about what eyeballs and biological bodies supposedly have to do with Absolute Truth, but don't pretend like people aren't being hopelessly delusional about what "solipsism" (if it can be called Absolute) actually entails and that sometimes some clarity is in order. So then you can retract your snide "pretty sure most of us have clued in that you didnt get the message" because you're obviously way beyond that infantile understanding.

The paradigm is that Absolute truth cannot be spoken because it is fundamentally beyond language, indescribable, ineffable. Any pointing to the truth is a pointer, not the truth itself. And any paradigm that supports itself on the notion that it has to explain reality in any way based on any criteria, is a philosophy, a convenient fiction. And if that is your idea of solipsism, then solipsism is a convenient fiction. Pointing to non-duality itself, is also a convenient fiction, when the goal is awakening. Pointing is convenient for that. "Nah but actually solipsism though, don't you know you're One, don't you know you're God, don't you know you're alone?", literal white noise that doesn't address anything that was said. I responded to whether the argument becoming weaker or not matters. I did not try to justify the emotional response. It doesn't really need a justification in any case.

Did you read my post earlier?

And you would've adopted his language pre-2021 as well if you had joined then and lambasted yourself for using weirdo language today and denied yourself today as certainly not having had any direct experience because "you can just tell" by the words you use. Weaker but it doesn't matter when you're arguing against people who think having a religious allegiance to a word decides whether you're awake or not.

Leo has corrupted the entire sphere of "spirituality" on this forum ever since he kicked out Nahm and his buddies.

@Willy Phallicus It couldn't be clearer that this place is a cult than this absolute unhinged cum-guzzling behavior from the brain-vacuumed followers. "Solipsism" is a word, an interpretation, it's not an experience. Go learn spirituality basics 101 with training wheels.

There are more schools of interpreting the divine than atoms in the entire universe. Yet you're here acting like your religion is the only true one.

I've also "experienced" solipsism but I interpreted it as an egoic reaction to encountering the absolute, not the absolute itself untarnished by my interpretations and fears. You are too caught up in Leonian fellatio. I've awoken probably more than 2400 times, that is every single day or so, since I awoke spontaneously while not aiming to awaken while sitting in a lecture in university just trying to listen to what the teacher was saying. And that was after 1000 hours of meditating every single day and having awakenings essentially every day up until that point mostly towards the end. I don't need another "lecture" about how to "awaken" or "experience directly" or "deconstruct rationalism". My entire post was about deconstructing rationalism. Do you understand that?

My guy, the "no one to understand" is you. It's just not the blabla.

Hahaha I knew there would be a possibility for a woosh there. My bad. It was a jokie. The irony of me doing exactly what you were pointing out became equivocated with me supposedly pointing out that you were being hypocritical somehow (the former was intended, the latter was an unfortunate coincidence). Emotional damages how much, I repair now 😚🥲🫢🫣

Beyond what?

Who discovers it?

This is just you explaining things in order to get a better grip on a situation that just unfolded 🙄

I'm not claiming to not take a position. I'm trying to show that the solipsist is also taking a position, which not necessarily has to be taken. Because the Absolute doesn't actually care.

How to solve the solipsism problem: So we have absolute truth which is that which exists before anything is said [1]. Then we try to say things to make sense of things using words. A brilliant word for this is "convenient fictions". Solipsism, idealism, even non-duality, as far as they are spoken, are convenient fictions. They are us trying to put things into words in a way that makes sense, in a way that explains our experience of reality. Our convenient fictions tell us the world works as if the convenient fictions are true. But they're not. They're just good generalizations, good models for telling us what is going on. Convenient fictions. The idea that there is an external world is a convenient fiction that explains why I can return to the same item in the same place again and again after I've left it out of sight. The concept of time is a convenient fiction for explaining how things change and often in a predictable way. The concept of space is a convenient fiction for placing objects in a shared "place" which has extension and distinctions you can point to visually. Etc. Now, what do you do as a solipsist? Do you say "the external world is a convenient fiction, no need to treat it as anything else", or do you say "there is no external world, all that exists is this current appearance of sensory phenomena"? Now, isn't that also a convenient fiction? "We don't need 'external reality' to explain what is going, we only need 'appearances happening right here right now [2]' to explain everything that is happening". See how you're appealing to explanation, in other words what is convenient? See how you're appealing to words, not that which happens before words? Does the absolute fundamentally need an explanation (in order to be absolute)? No. Does the absolute fundamentally need words? No. Does the absolute fundamentally care about which explanation is best? No. Does the absolute fundamentally care about which words are best to describe reality? No. So solipsism or any "ism" that exists to describe reality (again, even non-dualism, even the most conservative "One is all, nothing else needs to be said"), is a convenient fiction. The Absolute is fundamentally neutral to whatever convenient fiction you happen to use to explain whatever is going on. Now, we can talk about which convenient fictions are best to describe what is going on in reality. And there I would say solipsism is, not, good. But that's again a battle of convenient fictions. The absolute needs no battle. It only needs silence (while it watches the battle from the "sideline" as a neutral observer). So if you hold solipsism as anything more than a convenient fiction, perhaps it's time to reconsider that position. [1]. The absolute is not dependent or reducible to anything that is said; it may involve "things" that are said as the absolute is everything, but it's also beyond it. [2]. Notice how "right here right now" assumes time, and also space (which we have both shown to be convenient fictions) and that these things seem to decide what counts as "real" (which essentially means "valid within this convenient fiction").

"Women or men are better" is like the nerd equivalent of adopting a football team and cheering like a monkey.

There was a time I didn't think drugs like weed should be legal, like everybody else in the tribe. Then I thought and concluded it was not rational since alcohol is legal and it's a not at all innocuous drug. And that was a month or so before I was introduced to weed by my friends, and then I distinctively felt like a sense of pride that I had rationally concluded that weed should be legal "before" I had entered the weed tribe. So absolutely rational thought can change your mind, if you're open to that.