Martin Ball says he's not solipsistic

[Loveeee]

32 minutes ago, Bluevinn said:

No fluff.

Just tell 1st or the 2nd one.

Leo said everything must go into either 1st one or the 2nd one.

So which one is it ?

You're not conscious of what I wrote is the problem 

Pretend you're dreaming right now like you do at night and read again 

[Nemra]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Well, maybe they are concious. If I am concious, and they seem the same as me, probably they are concious too😅

That's the juicy part. 😏

They are imaginary.

Appearances are so direct that they make it seem to you that appearances, like people, should have an inner experience.

Honestly, it's beautiful.

[Bluevinn]

8 minutes ago, Loveeee said:

You're not conscious of what I wrote is the problem 

Pretend you're dreaming right now like you do at night and read again 

I don't want to pretend. Maybe I'm not conscious enough (says a solipsist, lol).

You replied to my comment, so I'm expecting an answer from you.

But still, you can't give me an answer—and you won't.
You'll go all around saying, "Oh, imagine this, imagine that," instead of actually answering the question.

But yeah i get it. Even leo can't answer that (his own logic)

[Dazgwny]

Solipsism is literally inescapable. When consciousness raises to an adequate degree, you will be left with solipsism. It’s just the way it is. Realty will fall apart, including other people. You will see right through everything, right through all the shit you’ve been spinning to create everything. Again, including other people, their separate mind, their appearance, their physical solidarity, the lot. And you will feel, for a time at least, completely insane for being able to do this. Insanity isn’t just not knowing what the hell is going on and losing your marbles as such, there’s the other end of the spectrum of insanity where you become insane because you actually understand too much. Solipsism will be part of that understanding. And then when you get over that, you can sit and marvel in wonder and bewilderment, and just how unbelievable it all is. It is what it is

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Oppositionless said:

Solipsism is a feeling not a belief. When you realize that everything you are aware of is your own awareness . That's the state of solipsism. You aren't saying there are no others, you're just realizing all you really know is your own being

Tell that to the solipsists.

These people want to use it as an ontological claim, not as an epistemic claim.

They constantly conflate epistemology with ontology and dont realize that they are making a jump from "what I am aware of" to "what exists".

Notice that they are struggling to connect that jump , they just make the same point over and over again about epistemology and then pretend that they somehow established the ontological part as well.

Also notice the incoherency of them saying: there are higher levels of consciousness (more to be aware of) , while also saying "what im aware of right now is the only thing that exists " - so one not being aware that there are higher levels of consciousness is somehow not an issue under their view, even though it clearly is.

 

"What you as a dream character stuck in your own dream is aware of, is the only thing that exists" while also saying "you can wake up from the dream" - gesturing towards something that you are not aware of, while also supposed to be true.

[SOUL]

Are people really still arguing about this here?

Wait...let me translate this into solipspeak...

Is the appearance of others within the appearance of time still appearing to argue about the appearance of this dispute with the appearance of others in the appearance of this space?

[zurew]

On 2019. 10. 11. at 0:17 AM, Leo Gura said:

First of all, solipsism is a conceptual scheme, a philosophical system. This is very different from actuality. In this sense solipsism is a fantasy whereas nonduality is actuality. Map vs territory. This is a HUGE difference. Don't underestimate this.

Secondly, solipsism is not even a good map. It does not recognize the truth of no-self and the truth that you are God. Solipsism is still dualistic in that it denies the reality of others by upholding the reality of the ego-self. Nonduality makes a more radical move. It denies the reality of all individual selves, especially oneself. If other people are unreal, you as a person must also be unreal.

If you are unreal, then what are you? Solipsism doesn't answer this ultimate question.

The part that solipsism gets right is that ultimately you are all alone. But what are you? You are not a finite being, as solipsism assumes. But when you finally realize that you are an infinite being, you will also realize that you are both alone and together, because infinity includes all dualities. You are so ONE that you cannot even distinguish oneness from twoness! Unless you do

Now solipsists , its time for you guys to argue with old Leo.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

Now solipsists , its time for you guys to argue with old Leo.

For the solipsists: doesn't it feel a little destabilizing to know that merely five and a half years ago (and probably more recently as well), you would've been completely deluded about solipsism, according to Leo? And if we assume that you are thinking for yourself, that by apparently some odd fluke, a huge chunk of you seem to agree with the current Leo and not the former? And then, notice the amount of comments in the 2019 thread that agreed with the former Leo and not the current Leo. If you are indeed thinking for yourself and "staying true to your experience", shouldn't this make you feel a little uneasy?

Edited May 30 by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

For the solipsists: doesn't it feel a little destabilizing to know that merely five and a half years ago (and probably more recently as well), you would've been completely deluded about solipsism, according to Leo? And if we assume that you are thinking for yourself, that by apparently some odd fluke, a huge chunk of you seem to agree with the current Leo and not the former? And then, notice the amount of comments in the 2019 thread that agreed with the former Leo. If you are indeed thinking for yourself and "staying true to your experience", shouldn't this make you feel a little uneasy?

This is an excellent point - and one Leo himself emphasises. Not blinding following and really probing for insight for ones self.

[Harikrishnan]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

For the solipsists: doesn't it feel a little destabilizing to know that merely five and a half years ago (and probably more recently as well), you would've been completely deluded about solipsism, according to Leo? And if we assume that you are thinking for yourself, that by apparently some odd fluke, a huge chunk of you seem to agree with the current Leo and not the former? And then, notice the amount of comments in the 2019 thread that agreed with the former Leo and not the current Leo. If you are indeed thinking for yourself and "staying true to your experience", shouldn't this make you feel a little uneasy?

Why would it make a solipsist uneasy? a solipsist doesn’t take leo or you real. Solipsist doesn’t give anyone else authority. 

 

[aurum]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

For the solipsists: doesn't it feel a little destabilizing to know that merely five and a half years ago (and probably more recently as well), you would've been completely deluded about solipsism, according to Leo? And if we assume that you are thinking for yourself, that by apparently some odd fluke, a huge chunk of you seem to agree with the current Leo and not the former? And then, notice the amount of comments in the 2019 thread that agreed with the former Leo. If you are indeed thinking for yourself and "staying true to your experience", shouldn't this make you feel a little uneasy?

There is no contradiction.

Solipsism as it is classically defined does tend to assume you are finite. And of course just intellectually agreeing with solipsism is not the same as direct experience of solipsism.

If you just read a wikipedia page on solipsism, you’re not going to understand you are God.

So Leo’s older post is essentially still fine.

[Harikrishnan]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

Tell that to the solipsists.

These people want to use it as an ontological claim, not as an epistemic claim.

They constantly conflate epistemology with ontology and dont realize that they are making a jump from "what I am aware of" to "what exists".

Notice that they are struggling to connect that jump , they just make the same point over and over again about epistemology and then pretend that they somehow established the ontological part as well.

Also notice the incoherency of them saying: there are higher levels of consciousness (more to be aware of) , while also saying "what im aware of right now is the only thing that exists " - so one not being aware that there are higher levels of consciousness is somehow not an issue under their view, even though it clearly is.

 

"What you as a dream character stuck in your own dream is aware of, is the only thing that exists" while also saying "you can wake up from the dream" - gesturing towards something that you are not aware of, while also supposed to be true.

Can ontology and epistemology connect or blurr? Like when berkely said to be is to be percieved.  

What I am aware of right “now”is only thing that exist.

 

[Breakingthewall]

7 hours ago, Nemra said:

That's the juicy part. 😏

They are imaginary.

Appearances are so direct that they make it seem to you that appearances, like people, should have an inner experience.

Honestly, it's beautiful.

7 hours ago, Nemra said:

 

Then you watched a video in YouTube where a guy said that people are imaginary without inner experience and now you believe that. Well it's your choice but if I were you I wouldn't tell those ideas to many people out of this forum.

 

 

 

 

[zurew]

4 hours ago, Harikrishnan said:

Can ontology and epistemology connect or blurr? Like when berkely said to be is to be percieved.  

What I am aware of right “now”is only thing that exist.

I personally dont think it makes sense much and I dont know what it substantially adds to say that you collapse epistemology and ontology there. You don't need to collapse epistemology and ontology in order to say that "What I am aware of right “now”is only thing that exist.". But regardless, you can take that view if you want, its just that you wont be consistent with it and it will lead to contradictions.

 

One issue that you have to confront with such an epistemology is that 'what exist' and whats true changes by what you are aware of at a particular moment. Right now what you are aware of is that you are a limited human being , then you take psychedelics you might have a God realization and during the trip your view of yourself will be that you are God. When your awareness tells you two contradictory things moment by moment (you are a limited human being and you are God) - which one do you go with and why and how do you reconcile this only using the epistemology that you started with? You will inevitably appeal to something outside of your epistemology and want to make a claim that is true in all cases and all the time, regardless if you are aware of it or not (hence you drop your epistemology that you started with).

 

So for example, you presumably want to say that there are facts about awareness and about how it changes and how it works, what you can be aware of  etc . If you think thats the case, then that will be an issue for you , because you have an epistemology that cant ground those claims. Your epistemology is moment and awareness specific and these claims are supposed to be true moment and awareness independently (not tied to any specific moment).

For example - the "You are God" claim is also a claim, that you are not aware of right now, but supposed to be true.

 

So basically the crux of the issue is that going with an epistemology "what I am aware of right now is the only thing that exist and true" cant ground certain claims that you take to be true (because those claims are outside the scope of that epistemology). Any set of facts that you take to be true that supposed to be true in all moments , your moment specific epistemology cant deal with.

So any claim about your ability or about your potential  is outside of this epistemology. You are not aware of what you can be aware of, but you think there are facts about what you can be aware of. 

 

 

One weird way to get out from this is to take the Leo route , where you say that "yes in your pov , you being God isn't true, because you are not aware of it right now" - But what he doesn't realize or wants to acknowledge there is that with that move you relativize all truths (everything becomes moment relative) and he loses his ability to claim that you are infinite, you are all knowing, you cant die , because all those claims are moment and awareness relative and those claims arent true (under this epistemology) if you are not aware of them.

 

Edited May 30 by zurew

[zurew]

4 hours ago, aurum said:

There is no contradiction.

Yes there is.

Quote

Nonduality makes a more radical move. It denies the reality of all individual selves, especially oneself. If other people are unreal, you as a person must also be unreal.

What you do is that you want to claim that all dream characters are unreal, but at the same time your dream character is real.

[Salvijus]

7 hours ago, zurew said:

"First of all, solipsism is a conceptual scheme, a philosophical system. This is very different from actuality. In this sense solipsism is a fantasy whereas nonduality is actuality. Map vs territory. This is a HUGE difference. Don't underestimate this.

Secondly, solipsism is not even a good map. It does not recognize the truth of no-self and the truth that you are God. Solipsism is still dualistic in that it denies the reality of others by upholding the reality of the ego-self. Nonduality makes a more radical move. It denies the reality of all individual selves, especially oneself. If other people are unreal, you as a person must also be unreal.

If you are unreal, then what are you? Solipsism doesn't answer this ultimate question.

The part that solipsism gets right is that ultimately you are all alone. But what are you? You are not a finite being, as solipsism assumes. But when you finally realize that you are an infinite being, you will also realize that you are both alone and together, because infinity includes all dualities. You are so ONE that you cannot even distinguish oneness from twoness! Unless you do "

-Leo

Lol. 

I bet if Leo changed his mind about solipsism, all the solipsism defenders on this forum would change their position in a blink of an eye. Just like the 2019 comment section - all were echoing Leo about solipsism being a dumb postion. 

Edited May 30 by Salvijus

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Lol. 

Credit goes to @Carl-Richard, he found it.

I just reposted it, because people ignored it.

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I bet if Leo changed his mind about solipsism, all the solipsism defenders on this forum would change their position in a blink of an eye, lol

Yeah, thats my suspicion as well.

Edited May 30 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, zurew said:

What you do is that you want to claim that all dream characters are unreal, but at the same time your dream character is real.

Yes. What people don't seem to understand is that "your perspective" is a dream character looking out at the world. It's not infinite, it's not absolute. The infinite and absolute is beyond your perspective, beyond all perspectives. It reaches in and contains your perspective, but that doesn't exclude other perspectives from being possible or real. It's like saying two clowns can't fit in a clown car because reality is infinite and only one clown truly exists. It's completely incoherent. There are other ways to argue for solipsism that are more coherent (but which I still don't find very palatable for other reasons), but this ain't it.

Edited May 30 by Carl-Richard

[Nemra]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Then you watched a video in YouTube where a guy said that people are imaginary without inner experience and now you believe that.

Why do you assume that I believed it from watching a video?

Also, why do you think what I'm saying is a belief?

[Loveeee]

7 hours ago, zurew said:

Now solipsists , its time for you guys to argue with old Leo.

He's saying you're not the only conscious human because there are no humans it's all your dream / you / God