Carl-Richard

If the first thing you're saying is a result of distinctions, and then you go onto say "and this is a result of there being no distinctions", is that true or false? "Distinctions" because "no distinctions". That's not true. But then the non-dually awakened "solipsist" will retort and say, like @Eskilon points out, "but there is no distinction between distinctions and no distinctions", as if that is an argument that supports their position and doesn't defeat it. I'm pointing out how it defeats it. They are making distinctions, but then when pressured on it, they say that there are no distinctions. "Absolute solipsists" are nihilistic addicts with the memory of a goldfish. They will contradict themselves like it's the only thing that brings them pleasure, and you can trust them to always repeat the cycle when pressured on it. They will reliably make distinctions and then they will reliably retreat to "but no distinctions" when pressured on it. And that's the only way they will ever be reliable, the addicts that they are.

I would hurdle the comment above in a heroic last ditch attempt to save their minds from the shadowy grips of their own mind. So the Absolute and relative is a distinction, there is no distinction, yet the distinction of "my mind" vs "other minds" exists and it says "my mind" exists and "other minds" don't? "But what I'm actually saying is that there is only one thing that exists in existence". Ok, say that, but don't say "when I close my eyes, my grandma has now stopped existing, and this is somehow a result from there being no distinctions", because that is obviously not true. "Grandma" is a distinction, "eyes" is a distinction, "stopped existing" is a distinction, "because of closing my eyes" is a distinction. You're fighting with shadows. If you want to affirm or deny anything in existence but existence itself, you are not talking about the Absolute, you are not talking about "no distinctions", you are distinguishing, you are affirming or denying. If you are about the Absolute and the Absolute only, it cannot be captured by anything but itself. Hence the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

I think Plato's cave is a brilliant way to illustrate what the solipsists that confuse relative with Absolute (and that have had legitimate glimpses into the Absolute) often do: So the people in the cave only see shadows on the wall, and then when they climb out, they see the light and they realize "this is what is truly real, and it's One, it's the only thing that exists!". But then what they erroneously do is they go back into the cave and start saying "these shadows on the wall, they're the only things that exist!". So despite their legitimate glimpses of the Absolute, perhaps due to inexperience, perhaps due to a lack of intellect, they make this unfortunate conflation, of conflating the shadows on the wall with the Sun that shines. The Sun creates the shadows (hence the Absolute creates the relative), and indeed the Sun shines ultimately as one, but to start taking the insights of the Sun and presenting them as shadows, that is the misunderstanding. The Sun is self-luminous, ever-shining. It does not need limitation, it does not need shadows, to exist.

"But my grandma doesn't exist when I close my eyes" 🐒 Honestly, one of the very few that gets it. I applaud you. But I will give my dry formulation of the same thing: whether minds exist or not outside your field of view, is a relative matter. The Absolute ultimately doesn't care. Therefore, to invoke the Absolute to say that minds do not exist outside your field of view, is a misunderstanding.

Give me your best explanation. Best explanation gets a cookie (laced with meth).

There is possibly a way out: But you should try to work with someone if trying this out, not do it on your own.

Ask why you ask "why" and realize asking why is the issue.

If solipsism was a country I'd nuke it.

Why are you dropping a quote without dropping the source?

You can do better than one sentence.

Take some glycine or something. Something verbal should rarely ever escalate to something physical. If it does and you didn't want it to happen, it's a problem with you and your emotional regulation. Go speak to someone.

That's the way I viewed Better Call Saul and probably everybody else that watched Breaking Bad. It's like the most obvious statement so it was funny.

You underestimate what "only cares about" really means. It's not about effort, but attachment (or lack thereof). And it's not about "meditation" as in sitting doing a practice, but being. Sitting doing a practice is the surface level of what meditation is about. But you know all this. I was just being cheeky.

Lol

There are potentially traumatizing events, then there is trauma (a particular response to potentially traumatizing events), then there are coping mechanisms and response to trauma. There is a wide variety within these.

🐽 Pig nose makes me think of Plumbus.

What field?

Name just makes me think of Plumbus. I can't ever get it out of my head.

Hell no write them down if they feel important enough to write down, unless you care about literally nothing else than meditation, which you don't, or else you would be enlightened right now. It's also possible to click "save" in your mind or plan it for later depending on the insight. As an alternative, if something only occurs to you once or if it doesn't stick in such a way that you remember it essentially forever, maybe it's was not that important in the grand scheme of things anyway. Important things tend to pop up again. Then again, being a creative means you want to take anything and everything that might seem interesting and seeing where it can take you, so there is also that.

What

Prove what? That triggering a neuronal response tends to lead to desensitization especially if it's a hedonic stimulus and not a noxious stimulus? Here is a thing about studies: they don't actually "prove" anything. They provide evidence for or against. They update your priors. Finding a specific theoretical rationale based on more general connections between basic (strongly scientifically supported) concepts does essentially the same thing. It's all probabilistic at the end of the day. A specific study, or two, or three, is just one step further in the process. If your only approach to epistemology is to read the conclusion of one or two studies from Dickwad University with a crappy self-report-based correlative design and paper-thin sample sizes and barely <.05 p-values and mixed results between 10 comparative measures, that's your prerogative.

The orienting framework for this is the concept of "control", which can be deduced from the concept of autonomy (feeling like being in control of your actions) and competence (feeling like you're able to exert control through your abilities). These are cornerstones of feeling like you are able to exert control and influence over your surroundings and in your life in general. What happens when you feel like you lack control? You develop various symptoms of negative emotion and cognition: Anxiety: a state of hypervigilance, which may involve a worry about what may happen in the future that will lead to a bad outcome (or not happen the way you want it to go, the way you are willing to it go if you could control it). With worry, it's the feeling of lack of control projected into the future. It might not necessarily involve a specific (lack of) competancy but maybe a general one like inability to predict the future (i.e. uncertainty), which is a potent cause of anxiety. Rumination: thinking about something that went bad in the past, a goal you didn't achieve, or some problem you seem to be unable to get over or solve. It's the feeling of lack of control projected into the past (or the immediate past if it's happening concurrently, a.k.a. "now" but still in the form of a thought so still technically the past). Getting stuck in endless "problemsolving" that goes nowhere is a typical sign of rumination. Depression: which might involve helplessness (not knowing what to do or how to do it, and therefore not doing anything) or hopelessness (not thinking this will ever change). These are less operational forms of feelings of lack of control as they don't entertain or mobilize for action (unlike in anxiety and rumination) but simply cease or accept that no action will work. This manifests physically as (or is associated with) psychomotor retardation, low mood, low energy, the typical "immobilizing" symptoms of depression. You could think of depression in the form of helplessless and hopelessness as the extreme endpoints of negative emotion and cognition, because they represent the extreme endpoints of feeling of lack of control ("nothing works, nothing will ever work"), and because while anxiety and rumination might not necessarily involve depression, depression often involves anxiety and rumination. And how does mindfulness, spirituality, cognitive flexibility, deal with these issues of lack of control (e.g. meditation, letting go of identification, etc.)? You might simply accept the lack of control and thus gain control in that (i.e. you identify with whatever is happening and it's you, so nothing bad can ever really happen, nothing really needs to be controlled, because it's fine anyway whatever happens). Acceptance is the very pure mirror image of helplessness and hopelessness, because you are always able to let go and opt out of the need to control and therefore opt into absolute control (as opposed to being perpetually stuck). But do you want to let go? That is always the issue. That's the crux of all the world's problems. But still, it's a good thing to have in the toolbox, a good thing to be aware of, and a good thing to know that you can orient yourself towards when you perhaps realize everything else is hopeless (be it due to depression or simply knowing nothing in life will every fulfill you at the deepest level, will never alleviate your suffering at the root, only temporarily soothe it). Because, the cognitive machinery associated with anxiety, worry, rumination, depression, is always active to some degree as long you are identified with that which needs to survive. The brain and the organism evolved these things because it was good for surviving (predicting things in the future, keeping account of things in the past, honestly judging your feeling of progress and performance). So as long you identify with survival, that is what you will experience to some degree or another (unless you are in complete control and acting perfectly in accordance with your autonomy and competence, which is possible to a huge extent that many might not appreciate but is still a relatively rare and even fragile state: this is where the emotions and cognitions take on a highly positive and excited and passionate form like the creative and productive states you can get in while working on something meaningful or doing something you love; the self-referential machinery flips over to the self-transcendent and self-actualizing machinery). But you will probably keep doing that for a while more so it's good to know these things until then.

Ironically, he jerks off to offload the excessive dopamine from all the coke he spoons up his chute Coke and jerking off is like salt and pepper, bread and butter. Ask Joey Diaz.

Maybe jerk off more then Notice what is a statistically modifiable statement that can be filled in with whatever value or strength and what is a dichotomous black and white statement. You encountered the former and provided the latter as a response. This is really what sets apart scientific thinking from non-scientific thinking. Being aware of statistical nuances.

Frequency alone will decrease sensitivity, and thus deathgrip-like behavior should occur automatically at some part of the range.