Martin Ball says he's not solipsistic

[gengar]

6 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I think you're the one who's afraid to be questioned and challanged. 

No, in this case not, you're all just coping.

If humans and any individuals are not real to begin with, why would solipsism have to be unreal? It's simply the best way reality can be.

I've cracked my mind around it for 5 years and there's simply no other answer than : Solipsism is real because reality being any other way would be evil.

I've coped and cried but in the end you'll get over it. It's not like I'm living my life like it's real though. I'm still immature af as a human in many regards.

Edited May 28 by gengar

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

Oh yeah, the difference is that you reject that when it comes to your specific truth claim, and pretend that yours is somehow not applicable to it , but everyone else's truth claim is subject to it.

Yes. That's what Absolute Truth means.

Your problem is that you disbelieve in the Absolute. This is a common trap.

I have never denied that I could be self-deceived. But so could you.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[gengar]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am just your dream.

Thanks.

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Your problem is that you disbelieve in the Absolute.

No - the issue that you have 0 good response or solution for (but pretend that you do) - is that even under the view where there is an Absolute Truth - How do you know which truth is actually an Absolute truth?

You predefine your way there and then pretend that you solved the issue.

 

The issue isnt ontological, the issue that I bring up is epistemological, that you again have 0 good response for.

Edited May 28 by zurew

[gengar]

 

Just now, zurew said:

No - the issue that you have 0 good response or solution for (but pretend that you do) - is that even under the view where there is an Absolute Truth - How do you know which truth is actually an Absolute truth?

You predefine your way there and then pretend that you solved the issue.

what if you forgot all concepts and ideas and were just conscious of what is here right now. would you not see everything as absolute truth? why would you assume it's relative, when there is no "stuff behind the scenes" (since we forgot all concepts and ideas) to relate it with?

 

[Salvijus]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

"But what if you're wrong!" applies to all positions, all arguments, all truth claims.

It could be debated which position is the most likely to be true tho. Your confidence in solipsism just seem unbased really. 

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, zurew said:

How do you know which truth is actually an Absolute truth?

Yes, that's the entire issue of epistemology and self-deception.

The only solution to self-deception is Awakening. Very, very, very deep Awakening. There can't be any other answer because Consciousness is Truth.

No one else can validate truth for you. Which is why God is so alone and solipsistic.

Again, think of the logic of why God must be solipsistic. God is like an epistemlogical blackhole. Nothing can escape an Absolute Mind. The solipsism is where all of God's power comes from. God doesn't need anyone to validate it. You are still looking for external validation. But God can have no externality.

You are not taking the logic seriously enough. The logic generates all of God's power.

An Absolute Mind cannot be divided from itself, it cannot have an outside, it cannot be limited by the existence of any other, and it cannot need external validation.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

Just now, gengar said:

what if you forgot all concepts and ideas and were just conscious of what is here right now. would you not see everything as absolute truth? why would you assume it's relative, when there is no "stuff behind the scenes" (since we forgot all concepts and ideas) to relate it with?

The question isn't "assuming that its relative" - the issue is about you providing justification that its not.

Again its an epistemic issue.

I dont claim to know or I dont pressupose that what you are saying is relative - what Im saying is that you dont have a good justification that would conclude that its not relative.

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, that's the entire issue of epistemology and self-deception.

The only solution to self-deception is Awakening. Very, very, very deep Awakening. There can't be any other answer because Consciousness is Truth.

No one else can validate truth for you. Which is why God is so alone and solipsistic.

Again, think of the logic of why God must be solipsistic. God is like an epistemlogical blackhole. Nothing escapes.

Yeah under the view where solipsism is true what you are saying make sense, the issue is under any other view using the method you are saying would just lead to self-deception and false conclusions and hence we are getting back to epistemic issues.

 

Right now, we could be in a world that was created by the Christian god and using your epistemology you could delude yourself into believing that solipsism is true without a doubt.

 

I dont understand why you think that the insights that you gathered and the confidence that you have in your insights couldn't be possibly replicated under any other worldview. Again - if you entertain for one moment that lets say Christianity is true - why do you think that you couldn't gather the exact same insights using your epistemology?

Why do you think that under the thought experiment where Christianity is true ,  you running the exact same experiments and contemplation would somehow lead to anything different? It could lead you to the exact same conclusion that solipsism is true , its just that in that particular case you would be wrong about solipsism being true.

Edited May 28 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont understand why you think that the insights that you gathered and the confidence that you have in your insights couldn't be possibly replicated under any other worldview.

My position is very radical:

There only exists one Truth. Everything else is self-deception.

The entire point of truth-seeking is to find absolutely one truth. This work is about hitting a perfect bullseye while everyone else fails. That's the level of epistemic precision required to realize God.

Yes, it sounds awfully arrogant to think you can do it. It's like taking all of your money and betting it on one horse -- the crazyist horse in the race. It takes an absolutely autonomous mind to have the balls to do that. A mind with no other.

This is about Absolute Autonomy and Sovereignty.

You have to actually realize that you're God. That's no joke. It's way more serious than anyone comprehends. It's too much to ask of a human.

What I am saying is that if you actually realize God you will be the only entity ever to know God. Only You will know. An absolute black hole. It will terrify the shit out of you.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

23 minutes ago, zurew said:

Why do you think that under the thought experiment where Christianity is true ,  you running the exact same experiments and contemplation would somehow lead to anything different? It could lead you to the exact same conclusion that solipsism is true , its just that in that particular case you would be wrong about solipsism being true.

Your epistemology dont demarcate between possible worlds.

 

If I pressupose a different foundation (we can go with Christianity or any other non-solipsistic view) and use your epistemology - your epistemology will fail to recognize that the foundation is not solipsism and would pressupose in every case that solipsism is true.

Edited May 28 by zurew

[gengar]

17 minutes ago, zurew said:

The question isn't "assuming that its relative" - the issue is about you providing justification that its not.

Again its an epistemic issue.

I dont claim to know or I dont pressupose that what you are saying is relative - what Im saying is that you dont have a good justification that would conclude that its not relative.

Against that I would say, that qualia are in fact impossible to not be absolute, since they are thing which is directly represented to you as it is, by definition of it being qualia.

This means all appearance and qualia are absolute.

We could still postulate the existence of noumena behind these qualia; but now the burden of proof would rest on you.

And my claim is that since it's entirely impossible to ever access or prove these noumena, all they are is a concept and an unreality.

[zurew]

Just now, gengar said:

Against that I would say, that qualia are in fact impossible to not be absolute, since they are thing which is directly represented to you as it is, by definition of it being qualia.

This means all appearance and qualia are absolute.

We could still postulate the existence of noumena behind these qualia; but now the burden of proof would rest on you.

And my claim is that since it's entirely impossible to ever access or prove these noumena, all they are is a concept and an unreality.

I agree with the qualia aspect, but thats not the issue, the issue about what kind of inferences you are making from there.

I recognize that appearance is appearing and that I cant doubt that - okay how do you get starting from there to solipsism without making a bunch of inferences?

[Leo Gura]

Realizing God cannot be any kind of assumption, inference, conclusion, or hunch.

It must be 100% direct.

When you become God you will know it. There's no missing it.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[gengar]

@Leo Gura A few years back you made the argument for solipsism from a moral point of view. I believe it went something like this:

"God is so selfless it doesn't create any other, but bears all the torrents of consciousness itself"

I thought that was a beautiful explanation and looking back it really hit a snare in me.

Consciousness going through whatever, only for the sake of loving itself and being itself.

Reminds me of Jesus on the cross.

[gengar]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

I agree with the qualia aspect, but thats not the issue, the issue about what kind of inferences you are making from there.

I recognize that appearance is appearing and that I cant doubt that - okay how do you get starting from there to solipsism without making a bunch of inferences?

the solipsism is actually a result of not making any further inferences beyond the qualia.

[zurew]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

Your epistemology dont demarcate between worlds.

 

If I pressupose a different foundation (we can go with Christianity or any other non-solipsistic view) and use your epistemology - your epistemology will fail to recognize that the foundation is not solipsism and would pressupose in every case that solipsism is true.

Whats the response to this?

Under the assumption where non-solipsism is true , how would you recognize using your epistemology that solipsism isn't true?

Your epistemology would generate the exact same insight (that solipsism is true) and in that case you would be wrong, but still 100% confident in your delusion.

Edited May 28 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, gengar said:

A few years back you made the argument for solipsism from a moral point of view. I believe it went something like this:

"God is so selfless it doesn't create any other, but bears all the torrents of consciousness itself"

Yes, that is a profound way to look at it.

It helps resolve the classic problem of evil which no Christian can answer.

Then again, if God is all beings in a non-solipsistic way, that logic can still apply. In the end all the evil only ever happens to God itself, so who is hurt?

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

Under the assumption where non-solipsism is true

The entire point is that if solipsism is true, it is an Absolute, which means you cannot assume any other possibility.

You are trying to do this thing where you keep your options open and explore multiple ways reality could have been. But the entire point of God-Realization is that all of that is false. There is only one way reality can be. All other contigencies are self-deception. This sounds unfair, but that's how Truth must be.

You cannot use scientific reasoning to understand the Absolute Truth.

Solipsism is unfalsifiable. You can take that an error or you can take it as Absolute Truth.

Edited May 28 by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

@Leo Gura you claim solipsism is true when you have a profound awakening, yet are you aware that not a single mystic or wisdom keepers in the history of humanity tought solipsism? 

Consider how strongly that undermines your position. 

______

Me:

Is there a single mystic or spiritual tradition that preaches solipsism? 

From chatgpt:

Excellent and revealing question.

❗️Short Answer:

No major mystic or spiritual tradition endorses solipsism.
In fact, nearly all mystical traditions explicitly reject it, even while affirming the unity of all things.

🧭 Why? Let’s break it down:

✅ Mysticism affirms unity, not isolation

Mystics across traditions commonly say:

"All is one."
Not: "Only I am."

The "One" is not the personal ego—it is universal consciousness, God, the Tao, the Absolute, or Brahman.

🧘‍♂️ Traditions That Emphasize Oneness (but not solipsism)

🕉️ Advaita Vedanta (Hinduism)

Says: The self (Atman) is Brahman (the Absolute).

But: The realization is not "I (ego) am all," but that the sense of separate selves dissolves into non-dual awareness.

Key Point: Others are not illusions in your mind—they are Brahman too.

☸️ Buddhism

Emphasizes no-self (anatta) and interdependence (pratītya-samutpāda).

The self is not ultimately real, but neither is the claim that “only my mind exists.”

Enlightenment includes compassion for other beings—impossible under solipsism.

✡️ Kabbalah (Jewish Mysticism)

All beings are emanations of the Divine (Ein Sof), distinct but interconnected.

The mystical goal is unity with the Source, not denial of others' reality.

✝️ Christian Mysticism

God dwells in all things; the self is nothing without God.

Love of others is central—otherness is real, even in mystical union.

☯️ Taoism

The Tao flows through all things; differentiation is functional but rooted in unity.

No sense that “only I exist”—rather, everything is part of a dynamic whole.

🌍 Sufism (Islamic Mysticism)

The aim is fana (dissolution of the ego) into al-Haqq (the Real).

All selves are rays of God, not projections of one person’s dream.

❌ Why solipsism is excluded

It centers the ego, even if unconsciously.

It denies love, compassion, and service—which all mystic traditions affirm.

It collapses spiritual practice into self-referential fantasy.

It confuses metaphysical unity with psychological isolation.

🧠 So why do some modern seekers accidentally fall into solipsism?

Nonduality and self-inquiry can be misinterpreted as:

“If I’m the Self, then only I am real.”

But that’s the ego hijacking the insight.

True nonduality says:

“I am not this ego—and neither is anyone else. We are all That.”

✅ Final Insight:

Mysticism dissolves the ego—not the world.
Solipsism inflates the ego and denies others.
Therefore, no genuine mystic tradition is solipsistic—and if one were, it would contradict the very heart of spiritual realization.

Would you like to explore where people most often misinterpret mysticism as solipsism, especially in modern nonduality circles?

Edited May 28 by Salvijus