Why solipsism is not Absolute

[zurew]

 

[Razard86]

6 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

@Razard86

- Said a devil. 

 

There is nothing but truth but truth can be distorted by the devil. Which at that point is not truth, is falsehood.

Of course you can play the game falsehood is also truth! 

Sure, and a blowjob by a Victorian model secret is also as truth as a hit in your balls with a hammer. But notice the inner intelligence where it does pivote towards, not towards the hit in the balls isn't?

No, the mind is a finite proyection of you, but is not You.

You said that you are God, right?

Well, Imagine that you were God and created a hammer to build a house. 

The hammer is a tool. Is not either you, neither the whole of Reality.

Imagine becoming the hammer. God can make the whole universe....a freaking hammer.

[Yimpa]

Hammer time!

 

[Carl-Richard]

22 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Things behind the scenes are relative truth, all relative truth is just content within the dream. I'll give an example. Let's say right now you go to sleep, then within your dream you research dogs and learn that there are sound waves that the human ear is unable to detect and play for itself but dogs can hear. You could say within the dream you just proved that there are sound waves hidden behind the scenes. You could even have your dog within the dream react to these sounds that you cannot hear. Then you invent within your dream an invention that catches the sound waves and then reveals to you that these sound waves were hidden all along.

Notice....how well done this is....it tricks you that something is behind the scenes happening.

I suppose the analogy assumes the dog in the dream is just a solipsistic projection of your finite mind, an NPC, right? Now, firstly, whether or not you conclude that the dog is conscious is of course a relative matter. You're not dealing with the absolute here. You're dealing with conceptual accounts of finite appearances, in the relative.

But also, secondly, I see through this analogy because I have concluded (from a relative perspective, based on observations and logical inferences) that there is no reason to believe that people in your nightly dreams are not conscious like yourself.

But again, this is dealing with conceptual accounts of finite appearances, again in the relative. Nevertheless, when you concede to dealing with the relative, solipsism becomes laughable. It's only appealing if you try to make it absolute (which you can't) or use it to satisfy some other pop-philosophical absolutistic tendency (e.g. "absolute skepticism", which is actually in reality incompatible with solipsism anyway).

Edited November 29 by Carl-Richard

[Mu_]

16 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

@Razard86

- Said a devil. 

 

There is nothing but truth but truth can be distorted by the devil. Which at that point is not truth, is falsehood.

Of course you can play the game falsehood is also truth! 

Sure, and a blowjob by a Victorian model secret is also as truth as a hit in your balls with a hammer. But notice the inner intelligence where it does pivote towards, not towards the hit in the balls isn't?

No, the mind is a finite proyection of you, but is not You.

You said that you are God, right?

Well, Imagine that you were God and created a hammer to build a house. 

The hammer is a tool. Is not either you, neither the whole of Reality.

What would god create a hammer from?  There’s nothing outside of god for something for it to make something else. God is a hammer just as much as anything else. 
 

just as true, is anything that could be said to be anything is first and for most god appearing as something else. 

[Razard86]

19 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I suppose the analogy assumes the dog in the dream is just a solipsistic projection of your finite mind, an NPC, right? Now, firstly, whether or not you conclude that the dog is conscious is of course a relative matter. You're not dealing with the absolute here. You're dealing with conceptual accounts of finite appearances, in the relative.

But also, secondly, I see through this analogy because I have concluded (from a relative perspective, based on observations and logical inferences) that there is no reason to believe that people in your nightly dreams are not conscious like yourself.

But again, this is dealing with conceptual accounts of finite appearances, again in the relative. Nevertheless, when you concede to dealing with the relative, solipsism becomes laughable. It's only appealing if you try to make it absolute (which you can't) or use it to satisfy some other pop-philosophical absolutistic tendency (e.g. "absolute skepticism", which is actually in reality incompatible with solipsism anyway).

People in your nightly dreams aren't conscious, you GIVE them your consciousness.

You are the source of everything. You are my source. I cannot exist without you, and you cannot exist without me. If you as Consciousness were to destroy the material world I would cease to exist. You are MY LIFE. So it would be accurate to say, thank you Carl-Richard for creating me. Consider that!!!

Edited Friday at 03:06 PM by Razard86

[Razard86]

Here is another way of it making sense. Right now I am living Carl-Richard's life from Razard86's perspective. 

[Carl-Richard]

@Razard86

On 29.11.2024 at 4:05 PM, Razard86 said:

People in your nightly dreams aren't conscious, you GIVE them your consciousness.

You are the source of everything. You are my source. I cannot exist without you, and you cannot exist without me. If you as Consciousness were to destroy the material world I would cease to exist. You are MY LIFE. So it would be accurate to say, thank you Carl-Richard for creating me. Consider that!!!

I just remembered why I stopped talking about non-duality a while ago. All talk about it is fundamentally impossible, no matter what standards of conceptual rigor you hold, and it gives the low standards of conceptual rigor air to breathe.

To talk about it, you have to wrestle in the dirt of subtle conceptual corruption, and some allow themselves to wrestle like absolute pigs. And as happens with solipsism, this porcine activity spreads to other things that have nothing to do with non-duality, which is the danger I want to avoid.

Of course, the non-dual project is about going beyond concepts altogether, and some wrestling in dirt can be a justifiable means to those ends given the potential positive outcomes. But it is possible to do this while employing at least some standards of conceptual rigor, and it can save many people from becoming completely lost with respect to using concepts in general. But if some people don't agree to this while discussing it, then it's a losing battle. A war on two fronts when all else is equal is unwinnable. More confusion may come out of it than clarity.

The least corrupt way I think I can contribute is again to recommend to study relevant disciplines that employ high standards of conceptual rigor (be it philosophy, science, religious texts) and start to appreciate the value of such standards and again hopefully see how corruption of them in one place quicky bleeds over to another.

That's not to say I will stop talking about non-duality altogether, but I'm considering to stop amplifying the reach of those who I consider to not do so in a rigorous way. Essentially, you're getting cancelled @Razard86 🤣 (personally by me, not through forum restrictions of course).

Edited Saturday at 04:35 PM by Carl-Richard

[Kuba Powiertowski]

Dear colleagues,
It may be worth considering the following: since the intellectual conceptualization of transcendent, multidimensional infinity from an extremely narrow and limited perspective is doomed to failure, if only because of the incompleteness built into the intellectual system, which cannot be cheated - maybe let's just recognize the equality of all views presented here as relative, mostly strongly personally conditioned and, most importantly, momentary. Maybe Self-knowledge never ends, who knows?
The fact is that for Razar, absolute solipsism is a current fact, for you, dear Carle-Richard - it is not. Solipsism in any form is not my cup of tea, but I respect Razar's position. He is where he is and that's good. Such a perspective is also needed - if only to fuel this discussion, which, as you can see, gives pleasure to its participants. And after all, this fun is what it's really about 😉

[Yimpa]

@Kuba Powiertowski thank you for your grounded response, and God bless America.

[Razard86]

14 hours ago, Kuba Powiertowski said:

Dear colleagues,
It may be worth considering the following: since the intellectual conceptualization of transcendent, multidimensional infinity from an extremely narrow and limited perspective is doomed to failure, if only because of the incompleteness built into the intellectual system, which cannot be cheated - maybe let's just recognize the equality of all views presented here as relative, mostly strongly personally conditioned and, most importantly, momentary. Maybe Self-knowledge never ends, who knows?
The fact is that for Razar, absolute solipsism is a current fact, for you, dear Carle-Richard - it is not. Solipsism in any form is not my cup of tea, but I respect Razar's position. He is where he is and that's good. Such a perspective is also needed - if only to fuel this discussion, which, as you can see, gives pleasure to its participants. And after all, this fun is what it's really about 😉

When you do the work deep enough you realize that you can recontextualize reality however you want and it can appear to be that way for you. That's all I'm saying. Basically in essence we are all equally deluded, and also we are not. Because reality can present itself however way it wants too. Basically reality is an infinite perspective.

For example try this exercise found in this link, its really good at changing your state.

 

Edited Saturday at 10:00 AM by Razard86

[Breakingthewall]

35 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

@Kuba Powiertowski thank you for your grounded response, and God bless America.

🤣🤣🤣

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Kuba Powiertowski said:

[...] the intellectual conceptualization of [...] infinity [...] is doomed to failure, [...] let's just recognize the equality of all views presented here as relative [...]

They are relative but not equal. See my newly elaborated response above. It's true that it's essentially a doomed project from the start irrespective of your approach, but there are gradations of that doom depending on your approach, and your particular approach has particular consequences.

Edited Saturday at 01:49 AM by Carl-Richard

[Kuba Powiertowski]

@Razard86 I understand what You say, more, I can sense your state of being / mind, and, probably very partially, I also feel your struggle.. Despite having diffrent perspective, in some sense your struggle is mine and a lot of people here. Especially in these, extremly confusing times. What enlightened (or darkened) me recently, was this ending scene in 2nd season of Arcane. I wrote a post about it day ago. We need to let ourselves to be who we are. Imperfect, often dumb but sometimes brilliant, often cruel and selfish but sometimes truly loving and kind. If we don't accept this simple fact that we are who we are nothing will ever change. There are no shortcuts here. You can't jump from who you are to a full non-dual state and stay there if you still want to have this human experience here. At least I don't think it's possible. And maybe it's not about that at all. Well if someone wants to blow out a candle, cease all experiences, one is free to go, I belive. For me love is pointless when it cannot be given, cannot be shared, cannot be found as a most precious jewel inside your heart that heals all your wounds and scars. Maybe that's why duality in its full spectrum is essential? I'm not interested in fields of dreamless solitude, not yet at least. Maybe as a pitstop to recharge my battery😊

[Kuba Powiertowski]

@Carl-Richard @Carl-Richard my approach is probably wrong, because what should I expect at this stage? And of course, I bear and will bear the appropriate consequences of my blind wandering and generating massive shit sometimes. Isn't that what these earthly lessons are all about? 

[JoshB]

On 11/14/2024 at 8:03 AM, Carl-Richard said:

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

@Carl-Richard Solipsism is the Absolute, have you ever contemplated that oneness can not be divided because it absolutely is you? Aka infinity 

Solipsism IS what makes You God.

 

Edited Saturday at 05:14 AM by JoshB

[zurew]

4 hours ago, JoshB said:

Solipsism is the Absolute, have you ever contemplated that oneness can not be divided because it absolutely is you? Aka infinity 

Solipsism IS what makes You God.

What is your argument for Solipsism?

 

@Razard86 Can you answer this?

On 2024. 11. 27. at 4:52 PM, zurew said:

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 Saturday at 09:47 AM by zurew

[Javfly33]

On 28/11/2024 at 3:22 PM, Razard86 said:

Imagine becoming the hammer. God can make the whole universe....a freaking hammer.

Exactly. "Imagine" becoming the Hammer.

You can imagine anything, but at some point you get tired of imagining.

When that moment comes you will seek Truth.

On 29/11/2024 at 1:12 AM, Mu_ said:

What would god create a hammer from?  There’s nothing outside of god for something for it to make something else. God is a hammer just as much as anything else. 

From its imagination.

So what? 

Imagination needs Intelligence.

Intelligence do not need imagination to exist.

 

In samadhi states, psychological mechanism dissappears. Do you as empty Bliss dissappears?

No! Samadhi "states" are the proof Consciousness or God do not need memory, imagination or "Mind" to exist. This is a second fabrication which can dissappears where the Absolute remains.

 

In other words, a hammer needs the proyection of God to exist. But God does not need a hammer to exist 

When you later identify with a hammer, then we say that "God" is in Maya.

You just lost Yourself in your Creation. Such a pity the Creator forgot itself in the Creation!

Do you want Truth or do you want to Keep Dreaming? Thats a trascendental decision that changes the course of Existence. 

Lots of "Gods" Will prolong It because they are too attached to their dream. 

[Water by the River]

Koan: Who or what again is having these minor conceptual disagreements appearing within "it"self?

Smiling at overflowing cups by the River

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Water by the River said:

minor conceptual disagreements

It's a minor disagreement in the same sense that lobotomizing your brain with a screwdriver is a minor disagreement with doing everything you can to keep it functioning.

Edited Saturday at 01:48 PM by Carl-Richard