Carl-Richard

You're underestimating the extent of relativity. Relativity doesn't just apply to the interpretation of something. The actual thing itself is a confinement, a label, a limitation, a concept, a fiction; which is relative. You're only talking about relative things here, not absolutes. The only absolute is God itself: pure, undivided consciousness. No "things" exist in an absolute sense. This is why it's important to make the distinction between the relative and the absolute domain. In the relative domain, yes, you are robbing a bank. In the absolute domain, there is only God. However, if you're able to concede on this distinction, then you could technically say that it's indeed absolutely true that you're robbing a bank in a relative sense (but then the use of the word becomes redundant).

I hope you'll laugh as much as I do some day when reading that.

When you're the only one that exists, why would you exploit or hurt yourself? If you're truly honest with yourself, it's really all just about the fear of being alone. The fear of being alone disappears when you accept that there is only one point of view. There are many different views in a relative sense, but only one view in an absolute sense.

How would you know the difference and what difference would it make for you?

I should've made it more clear: N vs P and S vs J.

No. "I robbed a bank" is only true relative to the idea of English grammar and a certain interpretation of language; whether it's literal or metaphorical, said in context, and whether you're using coded language etc.. It also assumes that you believe in personal agency, that personal agents even exist, that actions exist, that banks exist, and so on... Your statement only makes sense relative to these presuppositions. Depends if "me" and "you" are not the same people, and that isn't self-evident or obvious outside the given presuppositions that I've went through with you. That depends on the pre-existing value system that you're using to interpret the story. What is a bank? What is a robbery? What is a person? These things aren't written in stone. They're not absolutes.

@Yog I was talking about the similarities between N and P, not Se and Ni. Or am I that confused?

What if I never disagreed on any of that?

Solipsism is only a dirty word because of some confused scientists who don't understand metaphysics. Sure, if you arrive at solipsism from a place of self-aggrandizement rather than self-trancendence, then it's certainly a problem that needs to be addressed. It's not a pathology if it doesn't lead to pathological outcomes.

@Farnaby Rupert Spira addresses this point directly here:

Are you aware that you could only validate that through your own direct experience?

Relative truths are evaluated relative to a presupposed value system (a system of dualities), hence why it's called relative truths. It's very accurate considering how relativity is a core feature of duality (either part of a duality can only exist relative to the other part). All truth statements based on duality are relative, and non-duality (direct experience) is Absolute Truth. What you can consider "wordly" relationships all boil down to varying degrees and depths of relativity. The more relationships that exist in a given system, the more "relative things" there are. The more perspectives you're able to integrate into your own, the more relativity you have to engage in: For example, Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't contradict or exclude most of the conclusions of Newtonian mechanics, but he only adds a new layer of relativity (the relativity of time and space), and that unlocks a new territory of inquiry and exploration. Einstein includes Newton in his own perspective, but he also adds something more to the table, and that requires relativity. Likewise, the ability to distinguish between the absolute and the relative is just an additional layer of relativity (maybe we can call it "meta-relativity"). Therefore, when somebody conflates the absolute and the relative, I tend to invoke "the Absolute-Relative fallacy", and it looks something like this :

It's only called a dream because you're dreaming it up in your direct experience.

Other people exist relatively speaking. However, we're talking about Absolute Truth, and in that sense, other people are literally You. True non-duality is more shocking than you think.

That, my friend, is called the relative/absolute fallacy: conflating relative truths with absolute truth. Only Absolute Truth itself is absolutely true, but you can conceptualize and communicate it using language, and then it is being re-contextualized as a relative truth. Only direct experience itself is Absolute Truth, and it can therefore never be directly spoken of, only pointed to.

@Gesundheit If it's not direct experience, it's not truth.

What is life?

Not really.

How do you know it can be tricked?

If I were to use the sheet I gave, there are many things that seem to correlate (weakly or strongly) between N and P: Granted, I'm comparing full sentences with other full sentences, and that may cause additional inaccuracy.

Lovely

@Gesundheit There is Absolute Love and Absolute Beauty, and then there is relative love and relative beauty.

Bro. No. Bro.