Why solipsism is not Absolute

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I tried... .

And now for my dangerously sharp reductionist razor that hurts only by looking at it: so Nietzsche essentially realized that the map is not the territory, and that instead of retreating back into the comfort of the map, he abandoned map-making/reading altogether? I feel like I'm @thisintegrated talking to myself in an alternate universe.

Now, what does this have to do with solipsism being a result of individualism and urban structures again? 🤔

Edited Sunday at 10:23 PM by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

@Razard86 Can you lay down your semantics? Like do you have concise definitions for the terms that you use?

Like are you sure that you use terms like Absolute, and Total and some other terms the exact same way as some other people use here?

 

[zurew]

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Day 2 of @Razard86 not answering my question 😴

Day 3

On 2024. 11. 17. at 3:21 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Can I get just the outline, the bare bones?

I very much prefer this (where I am bombed with either jargon or with a ton of references that I am not familiar with) over  trying to make sense of gibberish, because in former there are ways to make sense of it (if we bother to learn and read) , but in the latter  - its just a waste of time and there is nothing of substance there (its either about language games or its the case of being conceptually confused).

Edited Monday at 07:14 PM by zurew

[Nilsi]

37 minutes ago, zurew said:

Day 3

I very much prefer this (where I am bombed with either jargon or with a ton of references that I am not familiar with) over  trying to make sense of gibberish, because in former there are ways to make sense of it (if we bother to learn and read) , but in the latter  - its just a waste of time and there is nothing of substance there (its either about language games or its the case of being conceptually confused).

I think you might be on the spectrum.

That’s like claiming Shakespeare was conceptually confused, as if all his depth could be reduced to a string of dry, rational analytic propositions.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

I think you might be on the spectrum.

That’s like claiming Shakespeare was conceptually confused, as if all his depth could be reduced to a string of dry, rational analytic propositions.

I think you misinterpreted again.

When it comes to thinkers and not just random forum users my general heruistic is not to assume that they are gibberating , but that I am lacking knowledge or something and thats why I dont understand what they are saying (and to be fair I always give the benefit of the doubt to all forum users).

I tried  to imply that you delivered  substance in your post and not that you were just gibberating (most people just gibberate though, i would be surprised if you would disagree with that). I have read enough of your posts to assume that the thing that you say is not gibberish and if I dont understand something, im gonna assume there is something to be understood there, and I just need to read more and think more.

Although I still think that you could 10x your game if your would learn prop logic and if you could lay down some of your arguments in syllogisms, where you make it extremely clear what kind of inferences you are making.

Gaining the ability to walk people through your reasoning in a very precise way is a very good skill and it indicates that your thinking is very clear about a given subject.

 

"you might be on the spectrum"

 I am probably the among the very few on this forum who go out my way to make sure I understand what the other person is saying, before I try to attack the postion the other person might not even hold  . Its insane to me how most conversations go down here - people just assume that they share the exact same semantics, but in most cases they dont, and because they probably talk past each other - its not even clear whether there is a disagreement there in most cases .

And to be clear, I do have an appreciation for poetry . I also have no issue conceding that there are scenarios where its better or its even neccesary to convey a concept or an idea using poetry or using art or using a longer form of writing than using  propositions. I do think though , that when it comes to reasoning its much better to show the inferences in a very clear way, rather than using very abstract stuff that can be interpreted in a lot of ways.

I also think non-propositional things can be meaningful and there is a clear difference in a lot of cases between non-propositional things and between gibberish.

Edited Monday at 09:07 PM by zurew

[Breakingthewall]

Solipsism is absolutely false. Reason 1: everything is the same substance, existence, but that is not someone, it is just absence of limits, infinite potential, it has no limits or dimension, so it is not alone, not "only" that exists since that is everything and unlimited.

2: for there to be perception there must be something external to the perceiver. Saying that this is a dream is total nonsense, since even if it were a dream, it would be something external to the perceiver, a brain wave is something external, internal and external are not limited to the body but to duality. If there is dualism there is exterior. Apparent or real does not define a difference, it does not mean anything. just dual vs non-dual means something, and if there is perception there is duality. If there is duality, one part of the infinite is looking at another. Both are parts of the infinite, therefore they are the infinite, so their level of reality is the same, the only one there is: infinite. Infinity is divided into infinite infinite dualities.

Solipsism closes the mind, limits it and completely prevents enlightenment. enlightenment is breaking limits, absolute breadth. solipsism is a limit

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

I tried  to imply that you delivered  substance in your post and not that you were just gibberating (most people just gibberate though, i would be surprised if you would disagree with that).

Well then, surprised you shall be, because isn’t it the fundamental lesson of psychoanalysis that what you dismiss as “gibberish” is precisely where the communication actually happens?

And someone obsessively disregarding the unconscious as mere noise? That’s what we call a hysteric.

[CoolDreamThanks]

Absolute is beyond concepts, indeed, but the concept that life is a solipsistic dream is true and is liberating.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Well then, surprised you shall be, because isn’t it the fundamental lesson of psychoanalysis that what you dismiss as “gibberish” is precisely where the communication actually happens?

And someone obsessively disregarding the unconscious as mere noise? That’s what we call a hysteric.

I don't think I disregard the unconscious as gibberish or mere noise, but I might be, im not sure. But to be honest, I dont see the relevance of this ,unless the main goal is to do a  psychoanalysis on myself or on the interlocutor.I dont have a convo or a debate because I have the goal of psychoanalysing myself or the other person. Hopefully during a debate we dont suddenly pivot to psychoanalysis and completely ditch the content of the given argument.

Also,my issue with that reply is that   we essentially end up denying that there is such a thing as gibberish. Because the reply of "you disregard the unconscious as gibberish" could be given in all cases (even in the cases, when somone is genuinely conceptually confused - and I think there are clear cases of that).

 

Also when I say "gibberish" I specifically refer to the semantic level/layer and not to something deeper than that. Communication is obviously much more than just semantics and I can imagine there are a bunch of cases where when the unconscious tries to communicate, we shouldn't only analyze the semantic layer (because on that level it might actually be gibberish) , but we need to take a much broader context in for it to make sense (like body language, past interactions and so much more).

But to be clear,  I don't know shit about psychoanalysis and about the unconscious.

Edited Tuesday at 12:25 AM by zurew

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, CoolDreamThanks said:

Absolute is beyond concepts, indeed, but the concept that life is a solipsistic dream is true and is liberating.

I think that limítate. If you have the idea that nothing exist except you, makes the you stronger. Make the limits more solid. That's the proof for me that it's not aligned with the reality 

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, zurew said:

Day 3

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited Monday at 11:58 PM by Carl-Richard

[JoshB]

There's too many posts riding Leos dick instead of realzing they are the only concious sovereign mind and that they made actualized.org. Just my 2 cents 

[Carl-Richard]

On 18.11.2024 at 7:54 PM, zurew said:

I very much prefer this (where I am bombed with either jargon or with a ton of references that I am not familiar with) over  trying to make sense of gibberish, because in former there are ways to make sense of it (if we bother to learn and read) , but in the latter  - its just a waste of time and there is nothing of substance there (its either about language games or its the case of being conceptually confused).

I understand why Nilsi thought you said he was talking gibberish and not what actually you meant to say. It was something about the formulation, I had to double check myself 😄

I think one can do both (meaty and bare bones) depending on what is appropriate for the situation and as long as one is able to go from one to the other on request. Providing a lot of references does give a certain gravitas to what you're talking about ("convergence"), and often it gives added nuance. But of course, it does become confusing when done excessively, so then you have to know your audience and be choosy unless you want to spend a lot of time explaining yourself ("eating the meat" 🥴). Ah, the virtue of balance 😌

Edited Tuesday at 10:47 PM by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

49 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I understand why Nilsi thought you said he was talking gibberish and not what actually you meant to say. It was something about the formulation, I had to double check myself 😄

Thats fair, btw feel free to ask for as many clarification as you want, I wont be bothered by it. If I say something confusing or if I formulate something in a poor way, call me out on it.

Also feel free to call me out on any other bs - if I say something thats incorrect or anything like that.

49 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think one can do both (meaty and bare bones) depending on what is appropriate for the situation and as long as one is able to go from one to the other on request. Providing a lot of references does give a certain gravitas to what you're talking about ("convergence"), and often it gives added nuance. But of course, it does become confusing when done excessively, so then you have to know your audience and be choosy unless you want to spend a lot of time explaining yourself ("eating the meat" 🥴). Ah, the virtue of balance 😌

Yeah to be fair - I use the herustic of "whether you share the necessary amount of info to make a point, because if you do, you are probably very knowledgeable and you have a very clear understanding of the subject" - because there is certainly such a thing as oversharing and giving info that is either not relevant or not necessary to make a given point . In other words ,being highly sensitive to what is relevant to establish a point is a good indication ( in my view ) that you probably have a clear understanding of that particular thing.

On the other hand - writing 2 pages long posts where you dont respond to a single thing - that can be a good indication that you either dont track where the convo is at and what you specifically need to respond to and or you share every piece of info you possibly can, in the desperate hope that there will be something in that big wall of text that will be relevant  to  the question you were asked.

Edited Tuesday at 11:32 PM by zurew

[ExploringReality]

Absolute Solipsism! There is Absolute Solipsism. Solipsism isn't just ego Solipsism or what can be called relative Solipsism, or the Solipsism the mind at a certain State of Consciousness concludes. 

[Inliytened1]

On 11/14/2024 at 9:03 AM, Carl-Richard said:

The Absolute is existence beyond all concepts; pure undivided existence. It cannot be divided for it is One. Once you divide it, you're in the relative; relationships between parts. And each part is necessarily a concept, something you thought up in your mind.

Solipsism claims "only my own experience exists; nobody else is conscious". It posits the concept of "my experience" as contrasted to "other people's experience". It therefore deals with the relative. It divides existence into parts (me vs. not me, conscious vs. not conscious), concepts, with relationships between them: me is the opposite of not me, conscious is the opposite of not conscious, only me is conscious and not other people.

Also, behind the concepts of me vs. not me (as an example), lie a ton of assumptions and yet more concepts. How do you identify who is me and who is other people? Through bodies? What is a body? Where does the body begin and where does it end? Is there an absolute boundary, or is it relative to how you choose to draw it? 

How are you seeing other people's bodies? Is seeing absolute? What happens if you close your eyes? Do you still see? No? What happens if there is a brick wall between your eyes and the body you are trying to see? Do you see still the body? No? So seemingly, seeing exists in relationship to other things, like eyes and things near and around the eyes. So seeing itself is also relative.

Then how can you base "the Absolute" on something relative like seeing, bodies, "conscious" and "other people"; concepts that are defined in relationship to something else (conscious vs. not conscious, me vs. not me, seeing vs. not seeing, body vs. not body, my body vs. not my body, etc.)? The answer is: you can't.

You need an awakening.  You are God dreaming up everything.  It's no different than a dream and you can become completely lucid.    But it requires awakening.  So everything else is just chatter.

 

Edited yesterday at 04:31 AM by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

You need an awakening. 

I have experienced no other, but there was also no me.

[Carl-Richard]

12 minutes ago, ExploringReality said:

Absolute Solipsism! There is Absolute Solipsism.

Or Cosmic solipsism. But many people don't understand it that way, hence the topic.

[Carl-Richard]

Day 4 of @Razard86 not answering my question 

Edited yesterday at 04:46 AM by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I have experienced no other, but there was also no me.

But you're still awareness.  The thing that thought up this whole thing.