Actual solipsism

[Reciprocality]

It could easily appear like I contradict myself between the last comment and the OP, but only if we do not differentiate between two different subjects.

The one being the initial meaning of words pertaining to a theory and therewith that theory itself

The other being the reinterpretation of that in that theory which is essential as opposed to inessential/accidental.

 

When I say that solipsism is actually a different matter than first thought I do not confuse the territory of what were initially thought like were done previously in the thread.

It goes hand in hand with a critique of realism about identities, I am saying that what people are actually unsure of, despite appearances to the contrary, when it comes to other peoples state of mind is not whether they are conscious but whether it is they who is conscious.

 

@Osaid @Razard86 What I am saying here will go past your head if you insist on reading certain words through a straightjacket of metaphysical convictions, you are wilfully incapacitating yourself.

[Osaid]

9 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

the distinction between what is and is not conscious is conditioned on the properties we refer to if we want to use the term. 

You are assuming the properties that you refer to.

9 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

That which is non-conscious supplants your mind with the possibility for your statement "everything is consciousness" to have the meaning you yourself think when you say it, if your usage of the words are consistent with the natural language of english.

This is correct, which is why I personally never say that phrase since it wouldn't convey much.

But also, it is possible for there to be a word which has no meaning in its context, in the sense that it points to nothing existentially. The word "non-existence" for example. It literally means "doesn't exist." It could very well happen that you are trying to form an existential conclusion using words that point to nothing existentially.

20 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

However, if you want to question the initial distinction itself between what is conscious and what is not by suggesting some inconsistency then the burden falls on you and even if you could successfully show that the distinction has problems with it you contradict yourself when you assert that everything is conscious, because you could not do so without reinstantiating the distinction.

I didn't say that everything is conscious, and that would actually be different from saying that everything is consciousness. The former views consciousness as an emergent property. I am simply trying to say that the distinction of "me" and "other" happens within consciousness, as with all distinctions.

[Reciprocality]

@Osaid Obviously hard headed focus on words is often pedantic but not the end goal here though it will continue that for a bit.

The distinction between "me" and "others" does indeed happen within consciousness, and so would even the actual others and the actual us do (independent of the thinking of that distinction, this is possibly contentious), yet without that which is not consciousness the appearance of "others" would not exist, the appearance is simply an instant in the set of all non-conscious things without any of which the formation of the conscious agent would be impossible, its conception of the distinction inconceivable and indeed consciousness itself null and void, in your case as much as in mine.

I think I understand why you would think that saying that everything is conscious views consciousness as an emergent property, the likely theory is that the statement for it to have meaning is synthetic and so that things could have been non-conscious but happen to be conscious through an emergent process, were they not conscious then they could have been something else.

 

1 hour ago, Osaid said:

But also, it is possible for there to be a word which has no meaning in its context, in the sense that it points to nothing existentially. The word "non-existence" for example. It literally means "doesn't exist." It could very well happen that you are trying to form an existential conclusion using words that point to nothing existentially.

The concept of non-existence is the condition for meaning in all possible contexts, it is very understandable that it appears that the latter part of the duality of exist and not exist involves something that has no referent and therefore exemplifies something which as opposed to my paraphrased assertion: "that without an existential referent for both halves of a duality the duality itself breaks down" actually can.

The concept of non-existence points to things that are outside present awareness, the ongoing knowledge of the possibility of a different experience is the referent for the concept of non-existence, in other words "non-existence" is the concept of concepts or concepts in general, in the same way the concept of negation is a postulate without meaning except when it is instantiated by anything which negates another thing, you are saying that the word "non-existence" has no meaning in its context but it always applies to things that are conceptual.

The typical idea of "non-existence" as being a concept that only applies to something outside of everything (and therefore has no referent) is conditioned on a theory that its meaning is given to us a priori (prior to experience), this is a respectable perspective that I shared half a year ago, but I no longer think so, because we can have a purely a posteriori account for it by investigating phenomenally whether it derives from the relation one predicate or description has to mutually exclusive subjects in consecutive moments of time. 

If the pattern sufficient for a subject to appear like a glass is contradicted by the predicate of a bottle the previous moment and existence applies to the referents in a given moment then the existence of the bottle is negated and thus non-existence a concept that applies to concepts but not referents.

Edited March 14 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

@Osaid The concept of non-existence as you stated does not apply to any existential referent, but it applies to nothing besides the things that are thought as opposed to also or only to that.

It also connects to dualities in general, by being their condition, without the meaning of non-existence being coupled with every experience then the duality of that experience and its opposite would merely be what we can call a semantic dream.

The same said in a different way: a duality is not an experience.

All this leads to the conception of general spontaneity which is one step from general purposivity.

Edit: a few edits here because of some misunderstanding.

Edited March 14 by Reciprocality

[James123]

On 3/11/2024 at 0:51 AM, Reciprocality said:

f and only if there is no self will other people, in the case they are conscious, be those that you think they are, because only if there is no self are you a perfect mirror of reality

People often misunderstood or realized what no self is. Self is the one who has learned entire universe. Therefore, self = Universe. 

Therefore, when there is no self, there is no others nor universe. Entire infinity collapses. 

[Breakingthewall]

8 minutes ago, James123 said:

People often misunderstood or realized what no self is. Self is the one who has learned entire universe. Therefore, self = Universe. 

Therefore, when there is no self, there is no others nor universe. Entire infinity collapses. 

There is no difference between having an empty or full mind, the difference is in understanding the dimension of what appears in the mind and not letting yourself be trapped by its limitations. There can be silent meditation and no openness and there can be an active mind and openness.

[James123]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

There is no difference between having an empty or full mind, the difference is in understanding the dimension of what appears in the mind and not letting yourself be trapped by its limitations. There can be silent meditation and no openness and there can be an active mind and openness.

Thoughts and bunch of ideas, forget these man. Where is love, kindness, being gentle like selfless prophet? We are it, we are!!!

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, James123 said:

Thoughts and bunch of ideas, forget these man. Where is love, kindness, being gentle like selfless prophet? We are it, we are!!!

No, the attitude must be as a knife, not as a gentle prophet, because I'm not a prophet. I'm just someone how open the psyche to see the infinity, and the only way to do that is becoming limitless. To do that you need to have some clarity, if not you would fall in some of the many subtle traps of the finite 

[James123]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

No, the attitude must be as a knife, not as a gentle prophet, because I'm not a prophet. I'm just someone how open the psyche to see the infinity, and the only way to do that is becoming limitless. To do that you need to have some clarity, if not you would fall in some of the many subtle traps of the finite 

Why do you make this to yourself? 

[Breakingthewall]

36 minutes ago, James123 said:

Why do you make this to yourself? 

1 hour ago, James123 said:

 

Just because i taste often the real freedom. The bottomless well of existence, the totality, the eternal smile, what I am. and in order to completely open perception, it must have no limits, the opening must be absolute. You must open yourself to the totality. Silence is not going to make this happen, silence is just silence, it is not very different from noise. The opening is with your whole being, not with your mind. you must open yourself now, completely, to the existence of this moment, then that existence erases the mind, only opening remains. From that opening existence flows and you are one with it. 

But the problem is that the psyche has thousands of little traps that are waiting to close, to immerse you back into the psyche. These traps can be very different, and you have to know how to see them, understand what limits you and have the courage to face it. Do you really not fear death? Be honest with yourself, are you free? almost no one is, it is one thing to have moments of freedom, another to be in total freedom. Do you understand what that means? Fear is powerful, there are many layers. Face the existence without filter has not shortcuts. 

Edited March 14 by Breakingthewall

[James123]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Just because a taste the real freedom. The bottomless well of existence, the totality, the eternal smile, what I am. and in order to completely open perception, it must have no limits, the opening must be absolute. You must open yourself to total emptiness. Silence is not going to make this happen, silence is just silence, it is not very different from noise. The opening is with your whole being, not with your mind. you must open yourself now, completely, to the existence of this moment, then that existence erases the mind, only one opening remains. From that opening existence flows and you are one with it. 

But the problem is that the psyche has thousands of little traps that are waiting to close, to immerse you back into the psyche. These traps can be very different, and you have to know how to see them, understand what limits you and have the courage to face it. Do you really not fear death? Be honest with yourself, are you free? almost no one is, it is one thing to have moments of freedom, another to be in total freedom. Do you understand what that means? Fear is powerful, there are many layers. Face the existence without filter has not shortcuts. 

What you are wrong and hasn't realize it this:

You are already infinite, free and boundless. Dont try to be, just Be. 

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, James123 said:

You are already infinite, free and boundless. Dont try to be, just Be. 

 You define things positively or negatively: you are nothing, you are love, you are free, infinite. This means absolutely nothing, you have to take an action, open your perception, open your mind and your being to what reality is, for this you have to do something: eliminate the limits. Just that, and for this you have to be humble enough to see your limits 

[Breakingthewall]

@James123  

there are many limitations. For example, last night I had a strange dream, I dreamed that some guys were taking a dog to a field, and to punish it for not barking when some thieves broke in, they doused it with gasoline and set it on fire, then the dog was a ball of fire and It is absolute suffering, sadness and incomprehension of so much horror. I thought, why does reality have this in it? Then reality disintegrated and everything was limitless and equal, pure reality. It was perfect and wonderful, but above it was the dog and its horror. Then I saw my limitation, I saw that I do not accept the horror of life, and I saw my fear. My fear is great, and it is stupid to deny it, but it is necessary to look it in the face, know it well, if I want to be free

[James123]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

 You define things positively or negatively: you are nothing, you are love, you are free, infinite. This means absolutely nothing, you have to take an action, open your perception, open your mind and your being to what reality is, for this you have to do something: eliminate the limits. Just that, and for this you have to be humble enough to see your limits 

It is completely the opposite, none action.