Carl-Richard

Space is visual extension. It's a concept with content. It's not nothing. If you draw two points and a line between them, that's space. If you don't draw two points and a line, that's more like nothing.

Consciousness has fish, consciousness has people, people have eyes, fish have eyes, eyes see only what is in front of them, what their eyes see is limited, it's a limited point of view. Do you agree?

Reality isn't just 2D. Wake up 😂

There is no room. When you take a psychedelic, you're in a psychotic state where everyday reality melts at the seams and you gradually start to deconstruct certain notions, but you didn't deconstruct it all the way. You were stuck in limbo, which is apparently what most psychedelic fanatics are, perpetually.

To show people something completely arbitrary which you conceived during a DP/DR episode during an alcohol-infused trip you had at a LAN party with friends? Sure, I also have stories from when I tripped with friends and spent an hour staring at a keyboard because I didn't know what the fuck was going on.

No, that's you describing individualized mind-body consciousness. Consciousness exists before that. You can deconstruct your mind and body right now if you try to sit very still and become one with silence and that which doesn't move (it usually takes practice of course). But you don't even need to do that; deep sleep is pretty much the same thing, but you probably don't notice that you actually are conscious during deep sleep, because you're too identified with your mind and body to notice the transition or subtlety of the state.

The fucking wall is a mental construct. Why draw an arbitrary line around the third dimension? All dimensions are a mental construct. This is why people fall into solipsism, making half-assed conclusions about what is a mental construct and what is not. I've had that on weed when opening the fridge. That doesn't mean much. Weird things happen in the illusion. Contemplate sober.

ChatGPT is actually pretty based.

💯

If Leo thinks a toilet exists but not other people, he puts primacy to some spatio-temporal entities over others, hence his metaphysics depends on space and time, hence it's not absolute (because space and time is relative).

You could also be a dual aspect monist when I think about it. You believe consciousness arises out of something that is not consciousness.

Not even your toilet exists.

So you're a materialist?

Anything that has an extension visually (not just in waking reality but also in your imagination) can be described by the concept of space. If you can draw two points and a line between them, that's space. Space is just a placeholder concept for things that extend visually. It doesn't matter if it's in a dream or not. The reason you think that is because materialists have hijacked the notion of space to mean space in waking reality (or outer space), which we can thank Descartes for when he drew the distinction between res extensa and res cogitans. But if you're an idealist, reality is indistinguishable from a dream. I linked a video earlier of an idealist that argued (from a scientific and philosophical point of view) that other people in waking reality are dream characters.

Did you see the picture I posted earlier? They are. I draw the distinctions (illusory distinctions) for the sake of pragmatism, for understanding the illusion. I have conceded that they are Maya and not metaphysical bedrock, in this very thread. Solipsists are the ones who ground their metaphysics in space and time by making definitive statements like "other people do not experience". If you don't want to talk about space and time, don't talk about others, let alone if they experience anything or not.

If there is only now, how does anything happen at all? "There is only now" is a stupid pointer. There is only what is. Then you can divide it into pieces through conceptualization, through things like change, movement, space and time, and you can understand things like frequency (which is an oscillation over time).

If change is constant, change has a changeless element to it. Change requires non-change. That's basic non-duality. If it's constant, it's absolute.

Teacher.

So you can't exclude anything. So apparently separate mind-body complexes can have apparently separate localized points of view outside of your own apparently separate localized point of view.

The problem I'm pointing out is claiming that some very specific forms are necessarily a certain way because there is no difference between form and emptiness. It's a total non sequitur. If you are claiming "there are no separate individualized mind-body experiences but this one", you can't claim that based on "form = emptiness". It's like claiming apples can't fall down or there can't be two clowns in a clown car because God is both and form and emptiness. It's a total non sequitur.

Consciousness without change can be known (it's always known), hence you can be conscious of it. There is always an unchanging element to every experience. Anesthesia is not "un-Consciousness". It's called unconsciousness by medical professionals who don't care about subtle metaphysical distinctions. If you grant the unknown, anything is possible. The ground of being could be a pink elephant. But within the known, Consciousness seems to be the ground of being. You're mixing up Consciousness with Maya (mind-body consciousness).

Firstly, the cone coming out the eyes should be thought of as a visual field rather than a pyramid. At the top, Consciousness is represented as an eye. Before it sees the world of illusion (form, Maya), it exists by virtue of itself. According to non-dualists and idealists, it's the bottom layer of reality, which is what the horizontal line represents (bottom layer of reality = ontological primitive). Consciousness sees the limited realm of form and illusion (Maya). It is not identical to it, because it exists prior to it, but it still sees and in fact creates the world of shapes, sounds, sights, smells, etc. That is also why Consciousness is referred to as "God" (all-powerful, all-knowing creator). Within the limited realm of form, as a human (and because it's useful), you have the ability to conceptualize and carve out distinct concepts of form. For example, the concept of "other" and "people", other mind-body complexes, as well as your own mind-body complex which you happen to be identified with. You also carve out meta-categories like space and time to organize such concepts: "other people exist distributed across space, separate from my own mind-body complex". The mind-body complex that you identify with is represented as the slightly bigger head with two eyes. The mind-body complex you identify with looks out on the limited world of form (i.e. the lines coming from the eyes), filters it through your limited sensory and perceptual organizing principles, and creates a representation of this limited world of form, inside your own private conscious experience (represented as the little cone). So when your mind-body complex looks out on the world and it sees other mind-body complexes (smaller heads with two eyes), if you conclude that "these other mind-body complexes do not look out on the world the way I do", you cannot say "because space and time does not exist" or "because only infinite consciousness exists", because you are already assuming space and time, you are already assuming finite wordly forms. If you concern yourself with mind-body complexes, you concern yourself with limited things. God, the Absolute, Infinity, is beyond limited things.

Yeah you flip-flop back and forth. Anyway, enjoy this disaster of a Paint creation. It's called "A lesson in space and time" (each horizontal line represents the ontological primitive of the respective view). The point is that solipsism (and the version that you now have officially endorsed) is Maya:

Leo should've released a video on what space and time (illusion, Maya) is before releasing that video. Because the most unfortunate part is not the people who expressed confusion. It's those who didn't but still took it the wrong way. Leo actually makes a distinction between "materialist / small self / egoic solipsism" and "Absolute solipsism" (Big Self / cosmic solipsism), but that distinction requires knowing what space and time is or else it doesn't register.

Yep. The problem is claiming to not make a statement about space and time while actually making a statement about space and time.