Carl-Richard

It's uncalled condescension (not in a teacher-student dynamic). But that's not the real issue. It's that your condescension is irrelevant. You're making a logical case, and logic is not awakening. I have a problem with your logic. I didn't ask for how egoless you are. It's definitely possible to be condescending without intending to be. And thanks for saying my name, it's the coolest name in the world. Narcissist gaslighting is a very specific term. https://www.charliehealth.com/post/things-narcissists-say-in-an-argument-and-what-they-really-mean Anytime you're arguing for solipsism, you're arguing from a position of logic. It can be condescension even if it's true. Ok ok ok ok, we get it, you are not a narcissist. Thanks for reassuring us.

"You just need to awaken" is condescending. "You're just imagining that it's condescending" is gaslighting.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68adfb3c0a788191922bf02764080b78

Wow very narcissistic gaslighting you got going on here. Wow.

He is talking about experiencing brain damage from his health problems, not his psychedelic use?

"It's interesting you take it that way" *continues being condescending and doing exactly what I described you were doing* Listen up: just because I disagree with your psychotic ramblings about life being a video game and only your bedroom being real, does not imply anything about personal experiences of the absolute. "Hua hua, you just lack awakening my friend". No, you're just psychotic. It's like you're talking about Red Pill philosophy and then somebody disagrees, and then you say "haha that's just because you're a virgin".

The reason people get confused is because people like you use fuzzy language while speaking with big authoritative capital letter exclamations and calling any sign of disagreement with your position as lack of awakening.

"No distinctions", yet "video game". Brilliant, Nobel Prize, bring it.

🫡 Straight shoota, shoota poo thoughts straight outta yo head. Ok I have to go to bed (that rhymed). (Btw, the first thought was "so you're walking your dog" but I did a logic thought afterward which destroyed it, oh well). Nice dog btw.

😂 So you just walked your dog, ok. Playing psychic darts right now.

The Wheel of Samsara or the Veil of Maya (and what some solipsists claim must undeniably be the Absolute 🤔).

Then he was not talking to you, congratz. Again, more cash in the "solipsists contradict each other" bucket.

He said "only".

I'm just screaming into the void, don't worry 👍

You gotta word that better.

1. The guy is awakened, not enlightened (according to my enlightenment radar; if you disagree, you're obviously wrong). 2. I don't give a fuck. This is a problem about logic. You can be absolutely psychotic and enlightened at the same time. And it was said tongue in cheek, mirroring his condescending remark, except I made it direct instead of making it indirect, which is another brilliant tactic.

If nothingness had been realized, you wouldn't have tried to claim that some very particular somethingness is implied by the Absolute.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about re-activations, which is actually not a problem unless you're scared of being enlightened. Or maybe he has said something else.

And? The absolute doesn't hinge on logic. Solipsism (videogame version) hinges on inelegant logic. If you want to give me a logical account of reality, do it well: don't assume unnecessary entities, don't equivocate, don't make an unnecessary mess.

Logic is not Absolute truth. Logic deals with Maya.

Here is why videogame solipsism is unserious. You will speak about "appearances", you will describe them very vividly, with concepts, labels, forms, and you put this as the absolute truth, because, why? It makes ZERO sense. You're already way beyond absolute truth. Once you start speaking about appearances, colors, sounds, flowers, bikes, cars, you might as well start talking about inferences you can make with those things (e.g. an external world), because you already poisoned the holy water.

In the realm of logic, I take what is most elegant while explaining the most things. If you show solipsism to be that, I will speak favorly of solipsism. The problem is most people who try to do that (if they even are trying), don't. And 50% of the time, they contradict each other, so there is that as well, which makes the entire pursuit unserious. Any solipsism involving videogame analogies is unserious to me (not because videogames are unserious, but because "only 1st person limited appearances are real" is unserious). Any solipsism that equates it to the Absolute and which leaves the realm of logic open to whatever you may find most favorable (because the Absolute is ultimately beyond that), then I favor that solipsism. But I still find the word "solipsism" to describe that as an absolute Nobel Prize in communicative blunders, because of the cultural confusion around the word which is the very basis for why 50% of the time, people contradict each other.

"X, therefore y", is logic. Nothing special about it. Leo's logic also relies on assumptions. There is literally zero difference. It's just that you want to challenge the assumptions in one case but not the other.

No, you are. The point is the logical deduction, justification, relies on assumptions, and these must be evaluated.

Only what I see is real. Literal checkmate.