AtmanIsBrahman

It’s not because of solipsism specifically that I think you’re stuck in rationalism; it’s from your overall mode of argumentation and thinking. Your arguments are riddled with scientific/academic philosophical norms and standards. But maybe the people you’re communicating with don’t share the same paradigm. Of course you think they’re brainwashed, but it could be the other way around too—this finger-pointing game of “you’re brainwashed” or “you’re a Leo minion” doesn’t lead anywhere. It’s really just an ego game. There is a possibility that you can step outside of rationalism as a paradigm and start truth-seeking afresh. You still have rationalism in your toolbox but can now go beyond it.

I didn't miss what you said. My point is that the specific contents of the dream aren't accounted for in any paradigm. You've repeatedly failed to understand this. There's a difference between content and structure, or we could say content and context. Solipsism recontextualizes everything as being your mind, but doesn't change anything else. Your list of things that aren't explained are all red herrings. I never claimed most of these things. I never said epistemic certainty was my standard, but just to humor you... One way one might know that solipsism is true is if the existence of multiple consciousnesses is impossible. Right now, try to imagine two consciousnesses happening at the same time, as vividly as possible. The concept doesn't make sense. They would have to merge into one. This actually connects to God--there can't be two Gods just like there can't be two consciousnesses. Anyways, you're pretty stuck in the rationalist paradigm and I would recommend rewatching the Deconstructing Rationality series. Just some tough love

You're making a lot of assumptions about me. That's not what I'm doing. To be clear, I don't "believe in" solipsism or anything else Leo says. But I recognize that solipsism definitely has something to it. The simplicity is striking, and most objections to it are based on it sounding crazy.

This is just wrong. Solipsism is the simplest explanation of reality. Standard idealism faces the challenge of how a bunch of consciousnesses that are separate can somehow come together (since the universe is consciousness). Solipsism actually has no such challenges-- the only challenge is incredulity. Also, you didn't really consider my point about explaining structure. Any worldview will struggle to explain why reality is structured exactly as it is on the micro-level. I'll walk back the original comment a little bit. The point was that truth comes before any implications or consequences in epistemic priority. But yes, it's true that you have to have epistemic standards. The only caveat is that these standards might be totally different for absolute matters (such as solipsism) than for relative matters.

You seem to be confusing the contents of the dream for the broader context. The broader context in solipsism is that it’s all your mind; for physicalism, it’s that it’s all physical stuff. Neither one really explains the things you mentioned. Physicalism seems to do so based on simplistic causal explanations, but it still leaves unanswered “why am I here?” If you’re asking “Why did I spawn into this specific dream?”, that’s a deep question and I don’t know the answer… not sure if Leo does either. It could be something to investigate, if you’re open to it.

The thing about solipsism is that it actually requires zero assumptions. That’s only hard to realize if you’re entrenched in the materialist paradigm. Also, brute facts is a notion that needs to be deconstructed. The absolute is a “brute fact” in the sense that it’s foundational and has no explanation besides itself, but this notion of brute fact is a very rich one—might I say, an infinitely rich one. When academics talk about brute fact, they don’t actually know what they’re talking about. A true brute fact is one of a kind, and it is the existence of EVERYTHING.

I think there’s a common core realization. Even if Leo and Ralston disagree on love, they still agree on the absolute. You’re treating the absolute as if it’s just some fancy notion without explanatory power. That’s a typical rationalist mistake—to dismiss a higher view because it doesn’t mesh with the rationalist paradigm. Yes, it’s true that the absolute doesn’t meet the scientific/logical/philosophical standards for a strong view, but maybe the standards are wrong.

Fair criticism. It would be nice to see Leo be more precise with terms sometimes. Although there's also a tradeoff because you won't make as many interconnections in your mind as if he equates Love, Truth, God, etc. No. That's the point. It seems like you're treating "absolute" as a property, which it isn't. It's not a bug, it's a feature. You're assuming that what makes a paradigm good is that it can explain a lot of things. This ignores two possibilities: 1) that what you're dealing with isn't a paradigm, and 2) that being able to explain a lot of things is what makes a belief/paradigm true. The focus should be on what's true, not any secondary consequences. So if Leo's solipsism is true, it's true, and it doesn't matter how much it explains.

I think he was somewhat spiritual in a stage blue religious way, but that’s a corrupt form of spirituality. The most ingenious part is that stage blue religion serves to defend the ego. “I have a lot of money, but I’m good because God says it’s good to have money, and you can’t say I’m greedy because it’s really God who gave me the money and not my own selfishness”

On Rockefeller’s Mechanical Productivity It’s interesting from a spiral perspective that Rockefeller is acting from stage blue and the guy making the video is trying to readapt his mindset as stage orange hustle culture advice. Also, Rockefeller’s self-bias is insane—“God gave me money” etc. is ridiculous stage blue selfishness. The worst part is that it masquerades as humility. You’ve got to wonder if Rockefeller’s success is actually worth it given his mechanical lifestyle. You can tell the guy had zero self-reflection and was hardly more conscious than a robot.

This isn't working on safari, just letting you know @Leo Gura

So I had this experience the other day where I had a spontaneous love awakening. I was contemplating reality and trying to write a philosophy of everything from scratch. The idea was to value truth to a ridiculous extent that no human does and actually put it into written form. But as I was doing this, I was also gaining an insanely deep consciousness of reality. It got weird when I suddenly had the clear impression that my cat, sitting on a hassock right next to me, was imaginary. It felt like I could sense the Universe imagining the cat into being in all its complexity. I saw through the cat as being both a mechanical survival machine and infinite intelligence incarnate at the same time—a manifestation of God in a finite form not knowing that it’s God. But I knew, and I think the cat saw that something was different and acted weird. I got kind of uncomfortable with this situation, so I decided to go to the bathroom and take a shower. At the same time, I was realizing love. I looked at my body and realized that it was Love. I had an insight then: that the reason you are allowed to be a human is because God loves you so much. The human is an imperfect creature, but God allows it to be so without judgment because that is the highest love. This love felt like too much to bear. I got in the shower, and was feeling horny from all the love, so kind of got to action if you know what I mean. At the same time I was aware that this is a finite and foolish form of love, but nevertheless God loves you for it so it’s okay. The existential love still felt greater, though. As I was under the water, I felt like the universe was merging with the back of my head with the water as a medium. Eventually my level of consciousness came back down again, except I was energized and lucid.

A couple suggestions: 1) You’ve talked about being able to invent your own states of consciousness, such as the alien mouse. I know this might be reserved for the awakening course, but could you at least describe how to create your own states of consciousness—ones that are different from transpersonal mystical consciousness, but equally profound? For example, what if I want to live in fairy tale consciousness? 2) On a similar note, how does consciousness allow for true originality? You’ve talked before about having a truly original thought (more difficult than it seems); this seems to relate to orthogonal thinking, where your mind goes in a completely different direction. This could have applications in personal development or business as well as spirituality. 3) A radical skepticism demo, where you go through the deepest levels of skepticism and see what comes out on the other side (absolute truth?). And what if you doubt even absolute truth? I’m thinking Descartes-style skepticism, but more profound. 4) I think this deserves a full video, just wanted to draw attention to it @Leo Gura

Here are my notes on the principles, mainly gathered from Ralston’s YouTube. Will update this when I read all the books. What is a principle? It’s like the principle of gravity. It always applies and guides your life. The point of a principle is its power. It will kick your ass. Honor- You don’t stab anyone in the back, even if it would hurt you. This was more popular in the past. Integrity- The inside and the outside are the same. What you express and how you perceive yourself are the same. You are integral—there is no split in your being. Everything is consistent, homogeneous, and one. Joining- E.g. in martial acts, you join someone’s movement. You get inside their mind, don’t try to change what they’re doing, and then you can coax it to your benefit. You can join in an activity—think business and relationships. Honesty- Your disposition is honest, your speaking is honest, your thinking is honest, your relationship with others is honest, you keep your word when you give it. Everything is aligned with the truth. Honesty can interfere with what you want. It is not about you. Mastery/Excellence- Doing something the best way possible. E.g. dishwashing story Centeredness- need more info Grounding- need more info

My concern is that the statistical worldview precludes making meaningful statements. Sure, it’s good to be aware that (almost) everything is context-dependent and not 100% x or y, but it’s important to make clear statements too. If someone is asking for practical meditation advice, it’s probably best to give an answer one way or another based on your experience or say you don’t know rather than making a vacuous statement like “why not both” or “it depends.” I think the way of thinking you’re describing @Carl-Richard is a form of rationalism, which comes with many limitations. This is what Leo’s deconstructing rationalism series was aimed at. If you’re so much of a rationalist that you’re qualifying everything with phrases like “probably” or “most likely,” you’ve definitely gone wrong somewhere.