Why solipsism is not Absolute

[UnbornTao]

8 hours ago, Razard86 said:

I tire of the many accusations if there is any sign of insincerity point it out. Where have I been insincere. And also...what does one gain for insincerity on here? A small ego boost on an internet forum? How desperate for attention would I have to be to sit on here and craft insincere narratives. I really think many on here suffer bouts of paranoia.

I'm not saying lying or self-dishonesty has to be deliberate or conscious; it's just that things might get over our heads, and to varying degrees. Be open. We might think we apprehend the nature of something while in reality we concluded, believed something, etc., and confused these acts with perceiving whatever is true. Just a reminder.

Edited yesterday at 10:28 AM by UnbornTao

[zurew]

On 2024. 11. 15. at 3:43 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Solipsists became real quiet when this one dropped.

If you keep it clean and ask them the following question, none of them will be capable to deliver anything of substance:

"what is the argument that makes solipsism more probable over non-solipsism? Whatever argument they will make will be allicable to non-solipsism as well (which means the provided argument wont make solipsism more probable over non-solipsism) or they will start gibberating about stuff they won't be able to explain.

But that above is the weaker version, because they don't just claim that solipsism is more probable, but they try to claim that it is necessarily true, which I interpret as it as a logical necessity, which means that all other variations entail a logical contradiction in them - which in this specific case would mean that non-solipsism necessarily contains a contradiction  - which they will definitely wont be able to substantiate, because as condenscending as this sounds the vast majority of forum members who are into spirituality have 0 clue how to make an argument, because they are not into analytic philosophy.

Edited yesterday at 10:58 AM by zurew

[Nilsi]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

If you keep it clean and ask them the following question, none of them will be capable to deliver anything of substance:

"what is the argument that makes solipsism more probable over non-solipsism? Whatever argument they will make will be allicable to non-solipsism as well (which means the provided argument wont make solipsism more probable over non-solipsism) or they will start gibberating about stuff they won't be able to explain.

But that above is the weaker version, because they don't just claim that solipsism is more probable, but they try to claim that it is necessarily true, which I interpret as it as a logical necessity, which means that all other variations entail a logical contradiction in them - which in this specific case would mean that non-solipsism necessarily contains a contradiction  - which they will definitely wont be able to substantiate, because as condenscending as this sounds the vast majority of forum members who are into spirituality have 0 clue how to make an argument, because they are not into analytic philosophy.

Imagine thinking that reality is „logical.“

[zurew]

18 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Imagine thinking that reality is „logical.“

I dont think you undertstand what I meant, but it was cute for virtue signaling to these people how trans-rational you are.

Now im going to go ahead and say I think solipsism is true and false at the same time and I think I am trans rational and I think I made a meaningful statement right there.

[Nilsi]

13 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont think you undertstand what I meant, but it was cute for virtue signaling to these people how trans-rational you are.

Damn, you’ve cracked the code. My fragile ego is trembling, and I can’t help but desperately signal my belonging to this pantheon of greatness and wisdom.

Obviously, I’m far too dull to comprehend the sheer brilliance of your revolutionary insight - the staggering originality of pointing out that the reasoning for a logical argument in favor of solipsism could also apply against it.

Truly, I am humbled by your unparalleled intellect and razor-sharp innovation.

[zurew]

 

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Obviously, I’m far too dull to comprehend the sheer brilliance of your revolutionary insight - the staggering originality of pointing out that the reasoning for a logical argument in favor of solipsism could also apply against it.

1) Never said that you are dull, all I said was that you didnt understand what I meant.

2) Thats not what it means.

3) I have never said that it is original or that it is profound -  in fact I would say it is pretty surface level stuff.

4) Given that is how you interpreted it, im not convinced you have gone through a basic prop-logic course , because you seem to be interpreting the term logic and the term contradiciton in a very idiosyncratic way.

 

I have 0 clue how you inferred from my post the "you think reality is logical" (whatever you mean by that). Never made any statement in my post about metaphysics or ontology, I was only blabbering about epistemology, and more specifically about justification. If you want to take the position where you accept contradictions as justification (outside of internal critiques) - go ahead and do that, but I don't want to participate in that brain-rot. 

What I said in my post is such a basic milquetoast take its fascinating. If you claim x, you should be able to substantiate x and more specifically if you  want to take on a burden that a non-solipsistic view necessarily entails a contradiction, then you better be able to show that. 

Now, obviously if that  entailed contradiction is something that no one gives a fuck about and its something that we think is a part of reality, then of course the argument won't hold much water (although we have to be very careful here , what kind of propositions we are talking about , because its one thing to make a claim that  the laws of physics is inconsistent and sometimes certain laws wont apply , but its qualitatively different to make claims like x exist and doesn't exist at the same time) - but if its a contradiction that we don't think is part of reality, then showing that contradiction can be pretty much valuable.

 

Edited 22 hours ago by zurew

[Razard86]

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

I'm not saying lying or self-dishonesty has to be deliberate or conscious; it's just that things might get over our heads, and to varying degrees. Be open. We might think we apprehend the nature of something while in reality we concluded, believed something, etc., and confused these acts with perceiving whatever is true. Just a reminder.

I don't have that problem. I understand that reality has more than one Absolute. That's the point people don't get. First there is the first person absolute that is housed within a state of consciousness. Then there is a disembodied absolute that can zoom out.

This gives an example. Then there is a split screen absolute that can show infinite lives all being lived. This is what is meant by experience being singular. This is what is meant by the ego is an illusion. Your ego...is my ego, all egos are my egos, which makes all egos completely identical. This is what is meant by God is all ALONE. Notice ALONE, is just ALL ONE with one less L......God is so ALL ONE that GOD IS alone.

Many people that have had near death experiences have reported in their life review obtaining the thoughts and emotions of others. Also in my own direct experience, I have experienced inhabiting the bodies of those around me and tasting the food they are eating as if I was eating it. So...this proves there are no others and you as God have cordoned off experienced amongst all your selves to experience yourself as separate.

The highest awakening can remove all that bit by bit.

 

Edited yesterday at 02:37 PM by Razard86

[UnbornTao]

@Razard86 That's a bunch of intellectual ideation, you are not clear on your nature.

[Razard86]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

@Razard86 That's a bunch of intellectual ideation, you are not clear on your nature.

That's a vague statement. You are accusing me of not being clear, while being vague. If I am not being clear, point it out.

[UnbornTao]

@Razard86 

Too much "this and that" and asserting things. Things like "there is more than one absolute" are BS. It is clear to me that is not coming from a breakthrough.

You can take it as it is.

Edited 15 hours ago by UnbornTao

[JoshB]

I think you need new mods lol @Leo Gura

[JoshB]

How could you be Everything and not be Alone lol

Alone = All one

Edited 16 hours ago by JoshB

[Razard86]

4 minutes ago, JoshB said:

How could you be Everything and not be Alone lol

Alone = All one

You got it, God is good at hiding its Oneness though. It's masterfully done. So well that it takes great effort to undo it. Unless you are fine with solitude, I wouldn't advise breaking it. And if you do break it, you can always put yourself to sleep if you want. But even if you do, you won't forget lol.

It's an interesting paradigm. The scariest thing is when you realize that the ego doesn't have control, and any power it has is given to it by God and if God wanted to, it could sabotage your entire life. I recently went through a trip for 6 weeks where I was shown that everything is God's WILL. Nothing happens or doesn't happen unless it is God's will. 

All of our abilities, accomplishments, failures, all of it...is God's WILL. The ego is completely at God's mercy. This was really humbling for me.

[Spiritual Warfare]

10 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

All of our abilities, accomplishments, failures, all of it...is God's WILL. The ego is completely at God's mercy. This was really humbling for me.

Right, so when you hit a milestone, it’s all divine intervention, but when you stub your toe on the coffee table, that’s God’s way of keeping you humble? Seems like the ‘plan’ involves a lot of clumsiness.

 

Edited 15 hours ago by Spiritual Warfare

[UnbornTao]

@Razard86 Edited my response above a bit.

All you talk about is relative.

[Carl-Richard]

@Razard86 "I answer all the questions. Nobody answers as many questions as I do. If it's anybody who doesn't answer questions, it's you."

[Carl-Richard]

16 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Ugh, what does that even mean? Can’t you put some meat on the bones?

I can like community and nature while also acknowledging the points of postmodernism. Isn't that what they call "postmodern Neo-Marxist" (or eco-terrorist) 😆?

 

16 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Framing this discussion through the Hobbes vs. Rousseau debate should help cut through some noise. Sure, I agree with David Graeber: the idea of history as a grand arc - whether from innocence to vice (Rousseau) or chaos to order (Hobbes) - is laughably reductive. Tribal societies expose this; they’re far more complex and diverse than such cartoonish narratives allow.

But here’s the deeper issue: the real question isn’t which grand narrative you prefer; it’s whether you can affirm reality as it is or if you need to concoct an idealized version of it just to function. The problem with the latter is obvious enough: even if your utopia were realized, your own psychology would crave it's undoing. This is Dostoevsky’s Underground Man in a nutshell - desire is always structured around a lack, and the real is never what we truly want.

And here’s the brutal paradox: we chase the real to escape it, and when we affirm it, we’re crushed by its weight. This is the tragedy of human existence - and Nietzsche’s tragedy too. His final act saw him break free from his self-staged neo-Grecian psychodrama, proclaiming himself Dionysos. But this wasn’t triumph; it was surrender. The Apollonian dream shattered, and the Dionysian real consumed him entirely, plunging him into a madness that endured until his death.

I’ll assume the connection to the solipsism debate is clear enough that it doesn’t need spelling out.

Ironically, I'm going to ask for the opposite with respect to meat on the bones. You're way beyond me right now. You're doing the Peterson; many references, fewer points (which is beautiful, when you understand it). Can I get just the outline, the bare bones?

Edited 12 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ironically, I'm going to ask for the opposite with respect to meat on the bones. You're way beyond me right now. You're doing the Peterson; many references, fewer points (which is beautiful, when you understand it). Can I get just the outline, the bare bones?

The subject’s pursuit of truth is always driven by desire - a desire structured around lack. The subject chases “truth” as though it were the ultimate object capable of filling this void. But upon grasping this so-called truth, the subject doesn’t find resolution but instead encounters a traumatic, unbearable enjoyment. This disrupts the symbolic order, destabilizing the fantasies that once provided coherence. Truth reveals the “Real” - the raw, unspeakable kernel of existence that defies articulation, rupturing any illusions of meaning.

Faced with this unbearable encounter, the subject retreats back into desire, constructing yet another layer of imagined “truth” to fill the void. This endless cycle is the machinery of ideology.

What we call “truth” - or in Lacanian terms, the objet petit a - is precisely what Nietzsche likened to the god Apollo: form, image, illusion, and beauty. Conversely, the Lacanian “Real” finds its parallel in Nietzsche’s Dionysos: raw experience, passion, sublime joy, and unity. Ideology is nothing more than the Apollonian veil draped over the Dionysian chaos - a desperate attempt to make the unbearable bearable.

Nietzsche’s revolution in Western metaphysics was precisely his recognition of this cycle - the eternal return. He saw that every metaphysical system - every grand attempt to impose meaning - is born out of the traumatic encounter with the Real and the subsequent retreat into the Apollonian comfort of ideology. In other words, metaphysics is nothing more than the reinstallation of the objet petit a to keep desire spinning.

But Nietzsche didn’t just observe this; he wrestled with it. He struggled to escape this cycle while knowing that every attempt to do so would inevitably recreate it. This tension drove him to increasingly virtuosic levels of self-reflection, pushing the German language to its limits and elevating himself to ever more absurd heights of self-aggrandizement.

The tragedy culminated in Nietzsche’s ultimate gamble: he decided to obliterate the psychological structure of the self entirely. By affirming the Real and skipping the objet petit a altogether, he abandoned the Other completely and and surrendered himself to the ecstatic void of solipsism. This act of defiant madness was immortalized in his final letter, signed Dionysos.

And then, silence. Nietzsche’s mind shattered. He neither wrote nor spoke another word for the remainder of his life.

[Nilsi]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Can I get just the outline, the bare bones?

I tried... .