Osaid

How does a metaphysical solipsist hold the view that there are "higher states of consciousness" if they believe their experience is the only one that exists?

I am quite magical and I like memes. Maybe I am an elite. Anyways, looks like they're having fun cosplaying, I won't judge.

No way, Peter confirmed that reality is Love?? 😱 Guess he wasn't ASLEEP™ after all.

They are philosophies. Useless in this work. Fun, beautiful, insightful, logical, and intellectually satisfying, but irrelevant to what is absolutely true. The fact that it comes from direct experience is irrelevant. Everything comes from direct experience. Science comes from direct experience. Delusions come from direct experience. Etc.

feels like im watching a bunch of old people play dungeons and dragons or something

Understanding can occur, but the way that reality understands itself is not through philosophy, that is just how philosophy understands itself. Philosophy is a small glimpse, a part of the whole. You are bigger than that. You are the thing that contains concepts and generates concepts. I guess what I am trying to say is that you can reach a point where you realize the type of understanding that Leo is doing is useless, and that it supersedes its function. You can't realize higher levels of truth forever through psychedelics, that is an error in your understanding of how reality and truth works. He is misinterpreting his results, kind of like how a scientist would, and then reporting it back. If you are not careful, and most people on this forum aren't, you will absorb the delusions he brings back. Yeah no problem.

I edited my original post btw, might be worth reading through again. The problem is that there is a barrier at all. If there is a barrier, that creates potential for corruption and delusion, which there is. You can't half-ass truth, and you can't refine it forever. You either get it or you don't. Osho also talks about this phenomenon, which also occured in the past. This entire "levels of truth" thing, which Leo calls "higher degrees of consciousness." The resemblance is really striking. Even the comparison of different teachers, and who is more or less awake, exactly as Leo does today with Ralston and the others. History truly repeats itself, but this time with psychedelics.

He is philosophizing all of his experiences and creating some kind of metaphysical framework out of it. Very hard to see, I only noticed when I myself became enlightened. Any person who is enlightened will see it immediately, as did Ralston. He will probably deny it if you ask him because that is what he has to tell himself to keep that game going, now he says there is such a thing as "Absolute Concepts." (paraphrasing from what I remember) If you want to see the difference between Leo and an actual enlightened person, it is perfectly exemplified in the exchange between Leo and Ralston in his newsletter: https://mcusercontent.com/8a146e2bfe98efdd8c326d97a/files/08332a98-370d-44da-86ff-2c04a3ff1858/CHNL_Summer_2020.pdf?mc_cid=f12b90ff1c&mc_eid=3667cfd58d Mysticism and enlightenment often get conflated with philosophy it seems. Maybe Osho was philosophical to a degree, I don't know, but he did not deny his own partaking in that, that misses the point. He is simply saying it has nothing to do with God or "religion" as he defines it. Osho might make poetry, but that does not mean he believes it will help you reach God.

Leo is still a philosopher, first and foremost. He is what you get when you try to reach enlightenment through philosophy. Yes, his communications can be very clear and direct and beautiful and intellectually satisfying. Enlightenment, truth, or reality, is not a philosophy and wont be captured that way though.

You are being overly technical, so I must speak your language. "No other minds outside of you" are symbols/words which point non-existence, it doesn't actually have anything to do with others, it only has to do with non-existence. Again, there is no such thing as different types of non-existence, that is just human imagination. What must be focused on is not language, but what the language is actually pointing to in your direct experience. The utility of the word "non-existence" should not be misinterpreted. Non-existence is an invention of human imagination and language, by definition it is what is not experienced.

The bracketed "(of other)" is overly conceptual, we can simplify it. There are not different types of non-existence. That is just an input from your imagination. There is that which exists, and that which doesn't exist. Non-existence doesn't exist.

I would save the friend for the same reason as saving the daughter. So my answer wouldn't change.

The problem is that non-existence doesn't exist. Anyways, I'm not gonna talk about solipsism here, because then we would have abandoned the previous thread for no reason, which is what I was trying to prevent until I got intercepted, so I'll just take a vow of silence instead.

Homeless person dies. Daughter lives. I don't know anything about the homeless person, I know everything about my daughter. It is the safest option with the knowledge I have.

The OP is creating an identity. They are defining their experience as solipsistic, and they are defining experience by referring to an imaginary entity called "other minds" or "other people." You can say that this is mind, or that is mind, but it fails to say anything really substantial. In this case, a tautology is created which says "I am me, therefore there are no other minds outside of me." If there are "no other minds outside of you", that sentence points to something that does not exist, it is pointing to non-existence. They are defining themselves with something that does not exist. Their "proof" is based on something that is imagined. I am not going to go into details about whether imagination, knowledge, etc. can count towards a valid existence of "other people", that is truly a debate for another matter, because the OP is presenting a very specific word/philosophy for his experience, which is "solipsism." And he claims that he has proof for it, and his logic for that is contingent on "I am me, therefore there is no other." That logic is where my contention lies, and where I say you cannot experience that because it points to non-existence.

Yep

Yep

Guess we're having a different flavour of solipsism today haha

No need for duplicate threads, keep it streamlined.

Ultimately, you have not truly realized that "other people" are imaginary. You have simply replaced it with another belief that says "Other people don't exist." You use the same imaginary parameter that you critcize in order to define your own experience, and so then you say "You can experience solipsism." The inability to imagine something does not create non-existence. You cannot create or realize non-existence by thinking about other people. I am not saying that other people do or don't have their own experience, I am saying that your proof itself doesn't say much.

The idea that enlightenment is a belief that can be dropped and reinvestigated is very funny. Certainly, that is probably how your awakenings feel. Awakenings require investigation, contemplation, philosophy. They need to be refined over time. Changed over time. They become more radical over time, as Leo says and exemplifies. Unfortunately a big red herring though. If enlightenment is an idea or belief for you, that is fine, but do not mistake that with enlightenment.

Seems like it.

If triangles had a God, they would give it 3 sides If humans had a God, they would make it a terrifying psychopath, sadist, masochist, and maniac 😅

Whatever story you tell yourself, it is experienced with the same simplicity, although the story itself might be complex. If other minds do exist, your experience of yourself is not going to change, you are not going to feel their pain. If they don't exist, your experience of yourself is not going to change, you are not going to feel their pain. Compassion was always extended from your experience. And also, pleasure on a universal scale? You cannot experience anything on a universal scale though because you're not experiencing everything at once, that is a generalization created through thought, and same goes for any other minds. Really, nothing would change experientially. Experience is simple. Solipsism seems simpler because it gets you to stop thinking about other people and it reduces the thoughts that you expose yourself to, similar to what would happen in meditation. No more thinking about "universal scales", just me. The issue is not the belief system, but your ability to handle your own imagination.

There actually isn't an outside or inside at all, like I said before. The fact of my experience is that I can have beliefs about things which aren't experienced, but those are just beliefs, and don't actually say anything about their existence, but that does not lead to non-existence, it is just a changing in beliefs. Experience contains notions of "outside" and "inside" within it, so it is inaccurate to use those notions to determine what consciousness lacks, because that then points to non-existence, which is the whole contention. Consciousness has the property of containing dualistic notions inside of it, which you could say is what makes it "infinite." My experience definitely doesn't say anything about non-existence, and you cannot reach non-existence by imagining a duality of "outside" or "inside."