Why solipsism is not Absolute

[Javfly33]

On 14/11/2024 at 4:03 PM, Carl-Richard said:

 

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? 

@Carl-Richard Good point!

For solipsism to exist first you have to create the concept knowing of there is 'me here' and 'there are others out there'.

And then you have to decide others are not real or imaginary for solipsism to be true. 

So 2 conceptual steps ahead in the mind, nothing related with what spirituality is.

[James123]

5 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

@Carl-Richard Good point!

For solipsism to exist first you have to create the concept knowing of there is 'me here' and 'there are others out there'.

And then you have to decide others are not real or imaginary for solipsism to be true. 

So 2 conceptual steps ahead in the mind, nothing related with what spirituality is.

Definitely.

[Letho]

@Carl-Richard The absolute is a thoughtless unity, intelligence divides, but it is itself the boundary of understanding, thereby other than the absolute intelligence intrinsically in and of itself, is the only other absolute that exists; perception of this is made and broken in a quantum formation to collapse, we have two states at the same time that are also the same. Solipsism albeit an interesting thought experiment I've learned a lot from is an illusion as far as our intellect attempts to carve out edges oblivious to how it's imprisoning itself inside the duality of its self-justification between perceived boundaries. The mind creates, yet intelligence alone illuminates the truth we chase. Truth : intelligence : absolute they all mean the same thing and the only other mirror that binds them is the attempt at unifying them which simultaneously places us into a false duality in as much we unknowingly become defined by the limits of the chase rather than living through its process.

Carl, just some considerations. Does for example intelligence reshape the boundaries of your experience, or merely reveal what lies beneath them? What defines the moment of realization, is it a break in perception or a shift in the mind's capacity? Can the Absolute exist without intelligence to witness it, or does intelligence become the creator by merely perceiving it? 

[Nilsi]

On 19.11.2024 at 11:41 PM, 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 😄

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 😌

That raises the question: who, really, is one’s audience?

The psyche is structured around what Lacan calls the Big Other, an imaginary audience that functions as a projective surface for our desire to be recognized. Writing to an “audience,” then, is never about addressing a concrete entity - it’s about orienting oneself toward a horizon of recognition, a gaze that shapes the psyche and directs one’s intentions.

This is precisely what Nietzsche invokes when he declares, “some men are born posthumously.” In doing so, he conjures an à-venir audience - a future, yet-to-come Other who will recognize him as a prophet. This act is not passive; it is an act of will, a kind of Landian hyperstition, where the mere assertion of this deferred audience creates the conditions for its eventual existence. Nietzsche’s psyche, therefore, is structured around becoming, as eternal striving toward a future beyond the limits of the present.

Contrast this with Donald Trump, for whom the deferred audience has been entirely supplanted by the hyper-present gaze of the media spectacle. For Trump, recognition is no longer an unfolding or a process; it is a constant demand for immediate feedback, an endless loop of instant gratification. This collapses any sense of duration or becoming into the nihilistic flatland of postmodernity - a world without depth, where the present moment reigns supreme, and the Big Other is reduced to the flicker of a screen.

In Trump, the future dies of diabetic shock, succumbing to the infantile bliss of perpetual nourishment. In Nietzsche, we find the ecstasy of becoming and the insatiable thirst for annihilation.

Which world would you rather inhabit? (and please don’t tell me it’s „the golden mean,“ or some such bullshit).

Edited Saturday at 10:50 AM by Nilsi

[Razard86]

On 11/21/2024 at 1:02 PM, Carl-Richard said:

It's more illuminating to say the absolute includes the relative, but the relative does not include the absolute. One is all-encompassing, the other is not.

It's true that once we decide to speak, we have to concede that we're using concepts and diving things into parts (relative vs absolute), and the absolute is of course beyond any concept.

However, when we have made that concession and we are willing to use concepts, we do it in a rigorous way, and that is when you should not conflate the relative with the absolute. We have different words for each for a reason.

 

The contents of the frame are relative. If you make claims about the contents (e.g. "other apes are merely NPCs"), you are in the relative.

 

That's conventional metaphysics (materialism), rather than science. Nevertheless, I'm not really a "conventional scientist" either. For example, I think psychic phenomena have legitimate scientific evidence. But I'm also quite comfortable with conventional science, e.g. the "role" of the brain (without assuming a materialists metaphysics), i.e. the brain seems to correlate with (not cause) certain phenomena (some thoughts, perceptions, sensations, etc.). But these are also just statements about the relative.

 

Speaking has rules and boundaries.

 

As a side note, what is funnily implicated by your conceptual nihilism is that there is no difference between apes being NPCs and apes being conscious in their own right, so again, we contradict solipsism.

What I am saying is you think there is a boundary between insanity and sanity. I will state this, unless you are willing to go insane, you will never understand what I am saying.

The reason people tell you that you cannot use language is because language is bound by sanity. Stop trying to be sane to understand Reality. Reality is BOTH sane and insane. If it wasn't those mental expressions couldn't exist. 

Look at this cartoon.

In it Johnny Bravo is God, trapped in a dream thinking he is human. Now he is still not completely unlimited because he still has a form, but his mind is dreaming things up based on his thought. What I am saying is...Reality is just a bunch of mental thoughts at play. And you are a thought with the ability to think. 

So notice the language used in this episode, Notice how its the same in Spirituality. You are being told that the people in your dream aren't real. What you don't seem willing to admit, is that YOU ARE ABSOLUTE. This means if something doesn't appear, it doesn't exist. Take the Dream analogy and make it absolute. Make it TOTAL. Extrapolate from there and you will discover what is going on.

Also lastly....watch this video by Leo.

https://www.actualized.org/insights/extra-insights-about-good-intentions

Now answer me THIS!!! Does this sound SANE to you? If a human asks God why rape exists at all if God is good? If they want the truth God will say....I have never created anything bad. 

To understand God at all, you have to throw away sanity and embrace insanity. You need to be a SANE INSANITY to understand God.

Edited Sunday at 12:25 AM by Razard86

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Razard86 said:

What I am saying is you think there is a boundary between insanity and sanity. I will state this, unless you are willing to go insane, you will never understand what I am saying.

The reason people tell you that you cannot use language is because language is bound by sanity. Stop trying to be sane to understand Reality. Reality is BOTH sane and insane. If it wasn't those mental expressions couldn't exist.

"The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight" - Joseph Campbell.

The mystic does not shun sanity. He holds both sanity and insanity. You don't shun language just because you discover a part of yourself beyond language.

Being troubled, chaotic and ungrounded is not a sign of wisdom, not a sign of maturity, not a sign of awakening. It's a sign of change and potentially a transition into the former.

So no, conflating the relative with the absolute is not excused.

Edited Sunday at 05:17 AM by Carl-Richard

[Yimpa]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight" - Joseph Campbell.

The mystic does not shun sanity. He holds both sanity and insanity.

 

[Will1125]

On 22/11/2024 at 10:14 AM, Javfly33 said:

@Carl-Richard Good point!

For solipsism to exist first you have to create the concept knowing of there is 'me here' and 'there are others out there'.

And then you have to decide others are not real or imaginary for solipsism to be true. 

So 2 conceptual steps ahead in the mind, nothing related with what spirituality is.

Either peoples are conscious, either they are not.

Something that seems to be conscious doesn't mean it is.

Edited Sunday at 07:05 PM by Will1125

[Javfly33]

6 minutes ago, Will1125 said:

Either peoples are conscious, either they are not.

Something that seems to be conscious doesn't mean it is.

Im not saying people are conscious. 

People do not have consciousness.

Consciousness has people. 

 

[Yimpa]

 

[Kuba Powiertowski]

On 24.11.2024 at 6:12 AM, Carl-Richard said:

The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight" - Joseph Campbell.

The mystic does not shun sanity. He holds both sanity and insanity. You don't shun language just because you discover a part of yourself beyond language.

Being troubled, chaotic and ungrounded is not a sign of wisdom, not a sign of maturity, not a sign of awakening. It's a sign of change and potentially a transition into the former.

So no, conflating the relative with the absolute is not excused.

Very good, wise. Thank You. I need it now and ever I suppose…

[Mu_]

On 11/15/2024 at 5:11 PM, Carl-Richard said:

 

Ok, Donald Trump.

 

Yes.

Now answer the question. I will re-phrase it and make it more specific:

Is it possible that the colors, sounds and smells you currently are perceiving (perceptions), are not the only perceptions that could be perceived, and that some perceptions could be currently hidden to you?

Its such a funny question due to what seems to be language, but are there perceptions?, is there anyone having perceptions?  On the one hand its almost honest to say there are no hidden perceptions because there is no humans or things having perceptions.  Theres also no other gods having other perceptions, and yet theres something felt in reading such, that says "hey, I know I'm over here, and your statement invalidates that, so  there for your answer is incorrect and not complete", but its still true, as far as claims of truth can be concerned, and yet its also false because all claims and logic that these rest on are not real to begin with.

This new territory of opposites that only feel this way to be true, still hinges on "mind" "logic claims" "experiences that make sense" and "experiences that don't make sense"

Lol, that might be the most gibberish thing I've ever written, but it hold something true I feel.....

[Razard86]

On 11/24/2024 at 0:12 AM, Carl-Richard said:

"The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight" - Joseph Campbell.

The mystic does not shun sanity. He holds both sanity and insanity. You don't shun language just because you discover a part of yourself beyond language.

Being troubled, chaotic and ungrounded is not a sign of wisdom, not a sign of maturity, not a sign of awakening. It's a sign of change and potentially a transition into the former.

So no, conflating the relative with the absolute is not excused.

You don't understand the absolute and the relative, you have yet to experience a miracle. I went through a 6 week trip of miracles with real world consequences. For example...my cell phone...was teleported out of existence and I had to buy a new one. So this belief that the absolute and the relative can even be conflated, is itself...a delusion. It cannot, there is only the Absolute. Conflation only happens with order, reality...can be chaotic and destroy order. 

 

6 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Its such a funny question due to what seems to be language, but are there perceptions?, is there anyone having perceptions?  On the one hand its almost honest to say there are no hidden perceptions because there is no humans or things having perceptions.  Theres also no other gods having other perceptions, and yet theres something felt in reading such, that says "hey, I know I'm over here, and your statement invalidates that, so  there for your answer is incorrect and not complete", but its still true, as far as claims of truth can be concerned, and yet its also false because all claims and logic that these rest on are not real to begin with.

This new territory of opposites that only feel this way to be true, still hinges on "mind" "logic claims" "experiences that make sense" and "experiences that don't make sense"

Lol, that might be the most gibberish thing I've ever written, but it hold something true I feel.....

 

[Carl-Richard]

52 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Its such a funny question due to what seems to be language, but are there perceptions?, is there anyone having perceptions?  On the one hand its almost honest to say there are no hidden perceptions because there is no humans or things having perceptions.

Well, @Razard86 and some others are assuming there are such things as perceptions, which is where the problem lies.

 

I just read some comment on Bernardo Kastrup's website which used the term "popular idealism", which I found quite interesting. It's the popular notion in most spiritual communities that says "experience is the only thing that exists".

While this is ultimately a true statement, of course, it does not go more into detail than that. It does not make subtle distinctions between things like perception and consciousness, which again requires either some understanding of science (psychology, cognitive science) or having thoroughly read some philosophical or religious texts, or frankly being enlightened (which almost nobody in the aforementioned camp are).

And herein lies the confusion when you start making inferences based on that very general notion "experience is the only thing that exist". Once you start invoking other concepts such as "you" and "other people" and generally "things" happening in experience, people quickly opt to the most seemingly parsimonious but rather naive position of "only my experience of things in experience exist, not anybody else's experience of things".

But of course, those are inferences based on the original statement and lousy distinctions, not the statement in itself, hence the problem of conflating that original statement with solipsism.

So it's the problem of "pop idealism", similarly to the problem of pop science; of being interesting in the topic but making surface-level statements and flawed inferences based on inaccurate distinctions.

Edited yesterday at 03:43 PM by Carl-Richard

[Mu_]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Well, @Razard86 and some others are assuming there are such things as perceptions, which is where the problem lies.

I just read some comment on Bernardo Kastrup's website which used the term "popular idealism", which I found quite illuminating. It's the popular notion in most spiritual communities that says "experience is the only thing that exists".

While this is ultimately true in the most real sense, of course, it does not go more into detail than that. It does not make suble distinctions between things like perception and consciousness, which again requires either some understanding of science (psychology, cognitive science) or having thoroughly read some philosophical or religious texts, or frankly being enlightened (which almost nobody in the aforementioned camp are).

And herein lies the confusion when you start making inferences based on that very general notion "experience is the only thing that exist". Once you start invoking concepts such as "you" and "other people" and generally things happening in experience, people quickly opt to the most seemingly parsimonious but rather naive position of "only my experience of things in experience exist, not anybody else's experience of things".

I think I get what bothers you about this, and I felt the same and maybe still do, but its true as anything, just as much its as false as anything..... you and razard seem to be saying a lot more of the same than, counter, yet you both seem to argue as if your saying something so much different....

[Javfly33]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Well, @Razard86 and some others are assuming there are such things as perceptions, which is where the problem lies.

I just read some comment on Bernardo Kastrup's website which used the term "popular idealism", which I found quite illuminating. It's the popular notion in most spiritual communities that says "experience is the only thing that exists".

While this is ultimately true in the most real sense, of course, it does not go more into detail than that. It does not make suble distinctions between things like perception and consciousness, which again requires either some understanding of science (psychology, cognitive science) or having thoroughly read some philosophical or religious texts, or frankly being enlightened (which almost nobody in the aforementioned camp are).

And herein lies the confusion when you start making inferences based on that very general notion "experience is the only thing that exist". Once you start invoking concepts such as "you" and "other people" and generally things happening in experience, people quickly opt to the most seemingly parsimonious but rather naive position of "only my experience of things in experience exist, not anybody else's experience of things".

So If I read correctly your point, the issue of misunderstanding mainly lies on assuming that we know what perception/experience is?

[Razard86]

21 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Well, @Razard86 and some others are assuming there are such things as perceptions, which is where the problem lies.

 

I just read some comment on Bernardo Kastrup's website which used the term "popular idealism", which I found quite interesting. It's the popular notion in most spiritual communities that says "experience is the only thing that exists".

While this is ultimately a true statement, of course, it does not go more into detail than that. It does not make subtle distinctions between things like perception and consciousness, which again requires either some understanding of science (psychology, cognitive science) or having thoroughly read some philosophical or religious texts, or frankly being enlightened (which almost nobody in the aforementioned camp are).

And herein lies the confusion when you start making inferences based on that very general notion "experience is the only thing that exist". Once you start invoking other concepts such as "you" and "other people" and generally "things" happening in experience, people quickly opt to the most seemingly parsimonious but rather naive position of "only my experience of things in experience exist, not anybody else's experience of things".

But of course, those are inferences based on the original statement and lousy distinctions, not the statement in itself, hence the problem of conflating that statement with solipsism.

So it's the problem of "pop idealism",similarly to the problem of pop science; of being interesting in the topic but making surface-level statements and flawed inferences based on inaccurate distinctions.

I've never said there are perceptions. You are making stuff up.

Consciousness is what everything is made of. Consciousness imagines perception. When it imagines perception....then there is perception. 

[zurew]

15 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

I've never said there are perceptions. You are making stuff up.

Consciousness is what everything is made of. Consciousness imagines perception. When it imagines perception....then there is perception. 

Can you show us how  "Consciousness is the only thing that exist" necessarily entails that "I am the only thing that exist" (Solipsism).  

Or if you dont want to claim that Solipsism is a necessary entailment, then you have to concede that you need to do other (more) steps to get there. 

Edited yesterday at 03:53 PM by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

23 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

So If I read correctly your point, the issue of misunderstanding mainly lies on assuming that we know what perception/experience is?

The misunderstanding is claiming to not speak about "things" but then continuing to speaking about "things". As for pinning down the distinction between concepts like perception vs consciousness, I can only suggest reading or watching some videos on that.

09:23 Here, Rupert Spira takes you on a guided tour, starting in the world of perception (of "things") and ending in the world of consciousness (beyond "things").

 

[Javfly33]

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The misunderstanding is claiming to not speak about "things" but then continuing to speaking about "things". As for pinning down the distinction between concepts like perception vs consciousness, I can only suggest reading or watching some videos on that.

09:23 Here, Rupert Spira takes you on a guided tour, starting in the world of perception (of "things") and ending in the world of consciousness (beyond "things").

 

15:10 "All we find in experience is knowing, not the knowing of experience"

That's interesting!