Martin Ball says he's not solipsistic

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I make so such distinction.

There is only one form of solipsism. The one everyone dislikes.

But hey, who cares what I say. Find out for yourself.

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:

Edited Tuesday at 06:59 AM by Carl-Richard

[Bluevinn]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I make so such distinction.

There is only one form of solipsism. The one everyone dislikes.

But hey, who cares what I say. Find out for yourself.

In your last video, "8 unique & original proofs of God," you said there can't be a finite object existing. Either that thing is God, or it's one finite thing of a chain which goes to infinity (which is ultimately God).

But then here in solipsism, you say only my finite self is conscious.

So this has to go to either:

1. It's infinity (This can't be true — this self is finite; I can't do whatever I wish. Obviously there are limits)

2. Or you're just one chain of a chain of infinity (which suits this so well — you're just one conscious self of many, which is ultimately god)

Edited Tuesday at 06:59 AM by Bluevinn

[Leo Gura]

I removed the video because this topic is too serious for me to tell you. You must figure it out for yourself.

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Bluevinn said:

So this has to go to either:

1. It's infinity (This can't be true — this self is finite; I can't do whatever I wish.)

2. Or you're just one chain of a chain of infinity (which suits this so well — you're just one conscious self of many, which is ultimately god)

Did he provide an argument that establish that that is a true dichotomy ( that those are the only two options and those two exhaust the possibility space ) ?

[Salvijus]

28 minutes ago, Yeah Yeah said:

I still wonder to what extent Leo implies his theory of solipsism

Like he already said, there is only one type of solipsism. That means he is implying it to the maximum. Because solipsism where conciousness can have multiple experiences at the same time is no longer solipsism. 

Edited Tuesday at 07:11 AM by Salvijus

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, Bluevinn said:

But then here in solipsism, you say only my finite self is conscious.

The self of solipsism isn't finite, it's Infinite.

Where does solipsism come from? What is the logic behind it?

If you have an other than you have divided yourself and you cannot be an Absolute Mind, you cannot be God.

Solipsism is just a logical requirement of being God. Without solipsism you can't have an Absolute Mind. You can imagine that others are real, but then your mind stops being absolute.

You can be non-solipsistic. But you will then never fully realize God. That's the price you pay for wanting others. You can chose to awake up or you can choose to dream. Either way is fine.

Edited Tuesday at 07:08 AM by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you have an other than you have divided yourself and you cannot be an Absolute Mind, you cannot be God.

Solipsism is just a logical requirement of being God. Without solipsism you can't have an Absolute Mind.

You can have another part of yourself tho. Oneness is the logical requirement for being God. Not solipsism. You can have oneness without solipsism. 

Edited Tuesday at 07:13 AM by Salvijus

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

You can have another part of yourself tho.

Not if you're conscious enough.

Omniscience requires full access to yourself.

Edited Tuesday at 07:10 AM by Leo Gura

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

You can have another part of yourself tho.

Yeah its like saying that the finger is your whole hand (sticking to that metaphor)

One finger is one expression that is connected to your hand, but its not your hand.

Its another case where people are relying on sloppy language to sell their points.

Edited Tuesday at 07:10 AM by zurew

[Bluevinn]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Without solipsism you can't have an Absolute Mind. You can imagine that others are real, but then your mind stops being absolute.

So, simply put, the process of breaking this finite bubble is solipsism — more like the endpoint, the destination.

Like a wave of the ocean reconnecting with the whole ocean.

Right ?

Edited Tuesday at 07:16 AM by Bluevinn

[Salvijus]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Not if you're conscious enough.

Omniscience requires full access to yourself.

It's impossible to have full access to yourself tho. You can dive into yourself infinitly more and more but you'll never be able to get to the end of God. There will always be other parts of God you don't yet have access to. Other parts of yourself . 

Edited Tuesday at 07:21 AM by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

10 minutes ago, zurew said:

Yeah its like saying that the finger is your whole hand (sticking to that metaphor)

One finger is one expression that is connected to your hand, but its not your hand.

Its another case where people are relying on sloppy language to sell their points.

Exactly. 

[Salvijus]

God is becoming aware of itself through you. And it is doing that same thing through infinite number of other individuated conciousness just like yours. That's what brakes solipsism but maintains nonduality. 

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

It's impossible to have full access to yourself tho.

Is it? How do you know?

10 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

You can dive into yourself infinitly more and more

That's true. You can.

But you also don't have to.

If you wish to keep dividing yourself forever, okay. Go ahead. Dream away. Have fun.

Edited Tuesday at 07:29 AM by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's true. You can.

But you also don't have to.

If you wish to keep dividing yourself forever, okay. Go ahead.

The possiblity of diving endlessly into God is what proves my point. It puts you into a position of an individuated conciousness (a child of God) in pursuit of other parts of yoruself (God) 

Edited Tuesday at 12:14 PM by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

Individuation is a logical necessity for God to know itself. If there was only blue, nobody would know what blue is. It's differentiation that gives us knowledge of blue. God has to individuate itself into infinite parts to be able to know itself. You're just one part in God's game. Every other part is equally valid. This dismantles solipsism but maintains nonduality. Individuation is a logical necessity for God to know itself. 

Edited Tuesday at 08:31 AM by Salvijus

[zurew]

So what is the argument that parts of a whole cant develop identity?

Also what is the argument that parts of a whole should be considered illusory? Because labeling a wave as illusory doesn't make much sense to me, even if its part of  an ocean.

Edited Tuesday at 08:31 AM by zurew

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

There's consciousness of God.

Whatever God is, that's your answer/proof.

God is not a concept.

Really, the thing you should be asking yourself is, What is God?

When you answer that question you will answer the solipsism question.

I do comprehend all of that. But knowing what God is, does not answer the question. 

I feel I have a different integration of the term Love. Which means I will only ever answer the question in a different way... For myself solipsism can never be the conclusion, as at the heart of my integrated love is sacrifice, surrender. And the knowledge that others are so real... to touch another, to see them for exactly who they are. Accept. Taste them, fall asleep arm in arm, heartbeats as one. Breath, as one. Caring for another, wanting nothing else in return. Such things cannot be born from a conclusion like solipsism. The fragments of one individuated consciousness meeting another. The pure bliss of it, removed of the fanciful romantic definitions of love. In that moment there is no time. You swim with another consciousness in pure earnest authenticity. Close your eyes and senses and there is no more material reality. Just two points of light vibrating. None of this can be reduced to a single experience being projected. This is WHY God allowed fragmentation, for this real experience. This experience is outside sensation, as sensation cannot even begin to describe it. This for me, is not simply a reduction to human love. Romantic love. It is the connection to another consciousness that once experienced destroys any options of solipsism being true. It is outside of reality, and yet, channeled into it via the sacred body.

I think you will reduce the above to woo or new age turds. And sure, you are free to - in which case we agree to disagree.

But this is exactly why the conclusion of Solipsism is false - because Love.

 

[Schizophonia]

12 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

There’s a major difference. One is saying reality is consciousness,

I’m saying: I posses consciousness, I am conscious of myself (subject) and of other (object). Consciousness having no attributes, it seems to exist because there’s a subject and object (duality). 

Ok yea i understand. 

[Schizophonia]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Not if you're conscious enough.

Omniscience requires full access to yourself.

Do you posses a difference between omniscience and clairvoyance ?