zurew

But your direct experience says otherwise - its peculiar that you have human thoughts , desires ,and you have an embodied experience of what it means to be a limited human - and yet in your mind none of that is finite. You dont have access to and not aware of a bunch of things right now. It can be true all the time, that what God's aware of is what exists, but thats different from saying what a limited dream character (you having a limited embodied experience as a human) is aware of at any given moment is all that exists. These are two separate claims. And to go with your definition of Absolute truth - for it to be true, its not required that you are aware that its true. Its not like , okay now you are aware of it , now its true (unless you want to take this absurd position, which we can go down if you want to). Which leads you to irreconcilable contradictions given your epistemology of "the only thing that is true and exists is what Im aware of".

You would need to move the whole "spirituality ,Consciousness" subforum there. Even your threads because people intellectualized them

You take your finite human self to not be finite? If you take it that there is a difference between being in God mode vs not being in God mode , then there will be a bunch of contentious questions about ontology there. When it comes to the idea of you collapsing epistemology and ontology - "Only the things im aware of exists" - when we invoke that , are we talking about being in God mode or not being in God mode? Because I assume that you want to make it so that there is no difference between the two, but whats the argument that establish that the same "Only the things im aware of exists" principle applies in both cases?

Yes, and hence why there is an open issue with interpretation. Every time someone talks about it, he/she relies on their memory (unless the claim is that they go through the same awakening live every time they talk about it).

Thats the right move

I wouldnt be so sure that you can solve the issue with having experiences. There is a possibility that it comes down the interpretation issues, not lack of enlightenment experiences. So for example, notions like "aloneness" only make sense if there is an identity. If the pure infinite consciousness dissolves all identity (it doesn't have any identity), then aloneness doesn't make much sense.

Im not even trying to challenge what Maharshi said - I dont think by "you" he meant the same thing as what solipsists mean on this forum. The term "you" can be indexed to God and it can be indexed to this limited dream character. I suspect Maharshi indexed it to God and he would agree that indexing it to this limited human dream character would be a mistake and might even say that its a category error, because its conflating duality with nonduality.

How should we treat others? There is no you, who could treat others. Nahm has entered the chat.

WIth that for some reason you made me remember a funny moment from an old Destiny stream, where he stated that the reason why he started to get into philosophy is becuase he tried to overwrite the madness and the lack of foundational certainty after doing shrooms. (timestamped) Maybe the same way how the dude in the video is not ready to do the "philosophical investigations" using psyhedelics , the same way you are not ready to do IFS to do the necessary investigations about daimons 😂

Actually these p-zombies havent realized this yet, but there is an awakening beyond Solipsism, where you can realize that you are just a dream character in ChatGPT's dream.

Hey solipsists, I would have never fucking imagined in my life, that dream characters will try to argue that they don't actually have a conscious experience, only my dream character does. Now that I realized that fact, enjoy your unconscious experience !

Idk, from listening to how he described it in another video, it doesnt seem to be like he wanted it to happen or that he expected it to happen - it seemed to happen on its own (while doing IFS) and it wasn't just a 1 time thing , its a regular weekly thing for him now (now he has some control over it, he can consciously decide when he wants it to happen) - and it also seems that this is not a new thing and Socrates and many others talked about shit like this way before Jung. Also from reading a limited amount of psych studies on AVH-s (Auditory verbal hallucinations) , they don't easily map on to psychosis. But, regardless how one wants to categorize these experiences/hallucinations - they seem to be very useful to people and life-changing in a positive way. And just to be clear - I am not sold on the idea that these are separate entities existing in a different realm, but there seem to be pragmatic value there.

By the lack of ability to respond to the challenges that are brought up, while also admitting that you can be wrong about the interpretation that you construct from the awakening that you have, while also saying that you cant be wrong about it because its unfalsifiable. And by the epistemology that you put forth. Your epistemology includes more than just direct experience. You want to hold on to "it requires interpretive work" while also saying that "its not something that you can be wrong about" To be clear, you are not even open for a debate, because you think you cant be wrong about it, so you are here to teach and preach.

Well, luckily then you will have at least two to even things out. (IQ and competence in playing the guitar). Any updates on the Dual n back training?

No, what I deny is that it gets you to solipsism and that you dont need do a significant amount of inference work to get to solipsism. Because the moment you admit that you do - you open up yourself to be wrong about it. Your don't "direct experience your way through" (you guys should have created a verb for this by now) to get to solipsism - you start from direct experience, and then intellectualize your way to get there.

Do some IFS (internal family systems) and then tame that motherfucker . For John Vervaeke it was Hermes.

Sounds like a human thing - You want to be appreciated for , recognized by and framed by more than just by one metric (in this case intelligence) The other "metrics" that you listed there are better to connect with people and to create less transactional, more authentic, more meaningful relationships for sure, so im not surprised that you care about those more.

I know you probably dont like it as a metric (just from the fact that its narrow), but have you ever done an official IQ test? I would be curious how much you would score on it. Your ability to reference and to express thoughts in a relevant way is crazy. Btw , I take you to be what Jordan Peterson would like to be - referencing and integrating thinkers in a relevant way and then expressing their thoughts in your own way (without trying to grandstand with your verbal IQ and obfuscate the fuck out of everything).

This one:

Im just curious whats the reply to old Leo, because so far the only thing I have seen is a cope where we pretend that old Leo agrees with current Leo (even though he explicitly expressed, that he doesn't). Why are you guys so incredibly afraid to disagree with him? - you are so afraid, that you cant even bother to disagree with old Leo, let alone with current Leo.

This was one of your main point that you expressed to Leo, right? Basically - "Start living in an unbounded way and stop narrowing your whole life down to being focused on, constrained by the chasing of truth"

@Nilsi So if I tracked you correctly - you take even mastery to be a constraint on self expression and self becoming. You would consider that an unnecessary limiting structure.

I might be making a mistake there, I should have used the term "real" - maybe by real you mean something different than by the term "exist". I am doing a poor job at trying to express what I am getting at - You are trying to say that reality is fundamentally experience, but I was wondering whether thoughts in your head would be categorized as experience or you would just say that they dont exist. This is why I brought the example with chairs - checking whether the idea of a chair that you can't sit on would be categorized as experience just the same way as a chair that you can sit on. Because the phenomenology between the two seems to be very different.

Sure , reality is an undifferentiated whole - but under your system the idea of a chair that I imagine in my mind would have as much existence as the the phenomenological instanstiation of a chair (that I can actually sit on)? Because then it just seems that by "existence" you mean something different than how it is typcially used (mereological nihilism aside).

That seems to be about a different issue. The problem you originally outlined is that some of those words dont refer to anything in the real world, mereological nihilism (as I understand it) wouldn't say for example that a chair doesn't exist, it would just say that chair is an arrangement of mereological simples - so the word "chair" would refer to something in the word (to an arrangement of the smallest parts). If you think mereological simples are quarks, then it would refer to a bunch of quarks, if you think its something different then it would refer to something different. But in the case of for example a unicorn, thats different, because in that case it isn't indexed to anything in the world (not even to an arrangement of mereological simples) - so this would be an issue separate from mereology. Btw I don't disagree with your overall point, Im just making a distinction.