I finally understand solipsism!

[Kuba Powiertowski]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

 

This is an entertaining game we're playing here.

 

Yes, considering that the word „entertaiment” is very broad. The scope of entertainment far exceeds the limits of human imagination.

[Galyna]

30 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

since the one who is alone is the self, the center of the experience, and this self is not real. It is a creation, a consequence of perception, of movement

100%

[Kuba Powiertowski]

Once you think you know IT fully, you have already made your first fundamental mistake.

[Kuba Powiertowski]

Especially since any so-called direct experience is filtered by the conditioning of the mind. It takes thousands of hours of disciplined observation of the mind to recognize its deceptive nature and to learn to use it essentially as a tool. However, it is very limited. As a human collective, we are only just beginning to learn about this. It is not simple, but rather very difficult. It is worth learning to be painfully honest with yourself.

[Yimpa]

5 minutes ago, Kuba Powiertowski said:

Yes, considering that the word „entertaiment” is very broad. The scope of entertainment far exceeds the limits of human imagination.

Yes, use Scope egowash to kill the 99% of nihilistic germs that contaminate Our Speech Holes, Om!


 

[Kuba Powiertowski]

@Yimpa enough to admit what I don't know, I don't know.

[Water by the River]

Marc Leavitt, Enlightenment — Behind the scenes.

And for all the ladies and gentlemen of the category „speak from your own experience“: Bless their heart ( ;

Yours truly is still on vacation. And why reinvent the wheel all the time… especially on the islands of eternal spring?

„So, overnight, I went from being considered a nihilist (someone who thinks that they are ‘nothing’) to a solipsist (someone who thinks that they are. ‘the only thing’). I really do understand these criticisms. You can’t expect to go running around ranting and raving about the world being an illusion and not be called a ‘nihilist’ or a ‘world denier.’ Likewise, you can’t go around screaming that you are the Space for everything in existence and not be called a megalomaniac or a solipsist.
But there is actually a tremendous difference between me and the nihilist as well as the solipsist. For example, when I say that the world is an illusion, I am not saying that the world doesn’t exist but instead that the world is actually God or Awareness. I never denied the fact that the world ‘appears.’ My point was that what we consider to be a fixed and solid world is actually God/Awareness manifesting as form.
Going back to my analogy of the rainbow ... I am not denying the appearance of the rainbow. I am only saying that the rainbow is not a fixed and solid actual thing, but instead that the rainbow is actually ungraspable Light. So, when I point out the fact that the world is actually an illusion, it is not meant to denigrate the world but instead to glorify it by recognizing its true and profound nature.
The difference between myself and the solipsist is that in my experience, I had to see that I was nothing before I could see that I was everything. In fact, in my experience, it was the very surrendering of the idea that I was some-thing that led me to the perspective that I was actually everything. I understand that this still sounds awfully close to saying that you are God but it would actually only be correct to say that God is you. After all, it is only in your absence that God appears.“

Especially the second paragraph in bold letters is not so en vogue at this forum,so…. :
Probably, that won’t get many horses to drink from the Water by the River (because it, uhhh, kills, and the horses seem to dislike that mostly), but hey… gotta do it anyway. One never knows if there is a sufficiently suicidal horse that has ripened enough beyond the still well and alive ego=God crowd…
 

A good start in 2024 to everyone!

Edited December 29, 2023 by Water by the River

[Breakingthewall]

14 minutes ago, Water by the River said:

understand that this still sounds awfully close to saying that you are God but it would actually only be correct to say that God is you. After all, it is only in your absence that God appears.“

Marc leavitt, sounds direct to the point. That's the subtle difference between the narcissist and the true mystic. The first thinks that he is God and that he is creating reality. The second moves away and reality is.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[Carl-Richard]

On 28.12.2023 at 4:00 AM, Someone here said:

I know I'm contradicting myself a lot about this solipsism stuff...but please guys hear me out ..I think I finally got a grip on the truth about solipsism. 

You see ..I'm conscious right now ..I'm conscious..that Is undeniable. But others are literally images in my consciousness.  I know I'm looking through my eyes ..but no one is looking through other's eyes because that's not in direct experience. 

In order to doubt the experiences of "others" the way you do, you first have to construct concepts such as space, time and objects. This is because you treat others as objects within space: different people are different objects with different locations in space, presumably running their little experienceless lives across time. The objects are limited and not equal to the entirity of that space (which you erroneously call your "direct experience"), which is an extended arena where objects are placed.

The problem is that what you call your direct experience is actually not "direct" at all. It contains constructions of space, time and objects. You're carving out some limited slice of reality (an "other"; an object) and isolating it from the greater whole (your "direct experience"; space). What is truly direct experience is what exists prior to this carving up of reality, prior to space, time and objects. Hence, direct experience has nothing to do with doubting the experiences of others in this way. Your doubting is itself a construction.

Another way to see this clearly is that you're constructing the concepts of "my eyes" and "their eyes" as objects in space. "My eyes" and "their eyes" are carved out as separate limited entities that are located in space and changing across time. There is nothing "direct" about these concepts. They're something you've (unconsciously) constructed and mistakenly taken as reality, hence the metaphor of being asleep in a dream. When you're asleep in a dream, the contents of the dream seems like reality. But when you wake up, you clearly see the dream for what it is; a dream, not ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is beyond space, time and objects.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Someone here]

@Carl-Richard let's say you are looking at an object like say a chair..is there really a 'you ' plus 'looking ' plus 'chair' or are these boundaries constructions in thoughts? 

[OBEler]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

In order to doubt the experiences of "others" the way you do, you first have to construct concepts such as space, time and objects. This is because you treat others as objects within space: different people are different objects with different locations in space, presumably running their little experienceless lives across time. The objects are limited and not equal to the entirity of that space (which you erroneously call your "direct experience"), which is an extended arena where objects are placed.

The problem is that what you call your direct experience is actually not "direct" at all. It contains constructions of space, time and objects. You're carving out some limited slice of reality (an "other"; an object) and isolating it from the greater whole (your "direct experience"; space). What is truly direct experience is what exists prior to this carving up of reality, prior to space, time and objects. Hence, direct experience has nothing to do with doubting the experiences of others in this way. Your doubting is itself a construction.

Another way to see this clearly is that you're constructing the concepts of "my eyes" and "their eyes" as objects in space. "My eyes" and "their eyes" are carved out as separate limited entities that are located in space and changing across time. There is nothing "direct" about these concepts. They're something you've (unconsciously) constructed and mistakenly taken as reality, hence the metaphor of being asleep in a dream. When you're asleep in a dream, the contents of the dream seems like reality. But when you wake up, you clearly see the dream for what it is; a dream, not ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is beyond space, time and objects.

Great example. So right now I have No direct experience of reality, because I construct too much upon reality (Filters,space time,objects). Once these constructions fall away and direct experience will be there,what do I experience then in this direct experience. what happens to these other beings I constructed before in space time with "my eyes" vs "their eyes". I mean are they independent existing of me? I construct them to have an Interaction with them. When the constructions fall away, then what happens to them 

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by OBEler

[Someone here]

@OBEler if you want to deconstruct reality then have some balls to deconstruct others . Don't just stop at deconstructing time and space and the sense of self behind the eyes etc . 

It's either all or nothing . There is no middle ground.  Either you don't exist as well as others or everything exists .

And btw you cannot experience reality without concepts because "reality " itself must be a concept (a word or verbal description). If you do this correctly you should just remain vegetated and silent. 

[Carl-Richard]

35 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Carl-Richard let's say you are looking at an object like say a chair..is there really a 'you ' plus 'looking ' plus 'chair' or are these boundaries constructions in thoughts? 

Constructions, just like "others".

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Constructions, just like "others".

OK so we agree that others don't exist as agents with subjective experience. 

[Carl-Richard]

16 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Great example. So right now I have No direct experience of reality, because I construct too much upon reality (Filters,space time,objects). Once these constructions fall away and direct experience will be there,what do I experience then in this direct experience. what happens to these other beings I constructed before in space time with "my eyes" vs "their eyes".

You have direct experience right now, but it's not reducible to objects, and your fervent immersion in objective experience temporarily obscures the conscious recognition of direct experience, making you appear as being unawake and lost in illusion. When the constructions "fall away" or are seen for what they are, so-called objects are still there (e.g. your body, your eyes, chairs, tables), but there is an unshakeable awareness of the primacy and ultimaticity of the dimension that exists prior to objects and which makes objective experience possible.

[OBEler]

15 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@OBEler if you want to deconstruct reality then have some balls to deconstruct others . Don't just stop at deconstructing time and space and the sense of self behind the eyes etc . 

It's either all or nothing . There is no middle ground.  Either you don't exist as well as others or everything exists .

And btw you cannot experience reality without concepts because "reality " itself must be a concept (a word or verbal description). If you do this correctly you should just remain vegetated and silent. 

I know that but that was not the answer to my question.

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, Someone here said:

OK so we agree that others don't exist as agents with subjective experience. 

Concepts don't really exist (from the perspective of direct experience). I don't get what your deal is with "subjective experience".

Edited December 30, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[OBEler]

@Carl-Richard someone here thinks that "others" dont have a subject experience.

So he thinks If you construct another being in your world, this other being is not linked to any subject experience. Like you Play an online Game and find Out that behind the Avatars are Not Humans who are playing this Avatar but they are just npcs. So Avatars with no subject experience behind it.

Edited December 30, 2023 by OBEler

[Someone here]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Concepts don't really exist (from the perspective of direct experience). I don't get what your deal is with "subjective experience".

My deal is very clear my love..but you are purposely trying to let it in one ear out of the other ...

If you want to deconstruct concepts like space ..time ..the self..the whole fucking universe..sure ....but why don't you deconstruct the notion that other people who you see around you don't have an inner experience of reality (call it subjective experience or qualia or vanilla ice cream etc it doesn't matter )..? 

It's as simple as this " this right here is ALL That exists . There is no self & no other . 

You seem to get the no self part .but do you get the no other part ?

[Someone here]

16 minutes ago, OBEler said:

I know that but that was not the answer to my question.

My bad then .

Please if interested ask whatever you want..I'm enjoying this conversation and it's a good learning opportunity.