How a Solipsist walks down the street and perceives reality

[Breakingthewall]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

however, it doesn't prove that others are experiencing simultaneously with you.

You mean here that others experiences could happen but not simultaneously. 

You say this because you're positioning the self, the center that perceives or receives experience, as the sole subject that has experiences. But this is precisely where the error lies. There isn't a subject that receives experience; the subject is experience. I don't have an experience; I am that experience, and without experience there is no self, no perceiving center. "I" can't have other experiences because if there are others experiences, as they are, they are not me. Not me as a self, as an observer. The absolute is not an observer, is what allows the observation. 

All this idea of creation, God, solipsism, stems from confusing the relative self with the absolute being. The absolute being is not someone, not a center; it is the fact of being that derives from total openness. It's not consciousness, consciousness is a form that happens. Is the reality reflecting in itself. 

Now you could say: everything is consciousness because without consciousness you aren't, then nothing is. Here is the problem: you as absolute are not a point of view, a perceptor, an observer. You are the totality where observation is possible. The difference is total. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Is this self-soothing for you?

No, it's accurate for me.

[Joseph Maynor]

7 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

No, it's accurate for me.

Interesting.  So it's accurate for you, but the primary focus is not self-soothing.  

[Nemra]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

You mean here that others experiences could happen but not simultaneously. 

No, it literally isn't happening to you.

You are using your experience to project onto others because you think that if you have a body, then why other people, who have human bodies, wouldn't experience stuff with you.

What you're doing here is illogical, because you're assuming that your experience and others' experience have the same level of existence.

By the way, I'm not saying that people aren't conscious of things, because certainly, they can tell you stuff that you could also be conscious of.

7 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

You say this because you're positioning the self, the center that perceives or receives experience, as the sole subject that has experiences. But this is precisely where the error lies. There isn't a subject that receives experience; the subject is experience. I don't have an experience; I am that experience, and without experience there is no self, no perceiving center. "I" can't have other experiences because if there are others experiences, as they are, they are not me. Not me as a self, as an observer. The absolute is not an observer, is what allows the observation. 

I wrote in my previous posts that limiting your identity is false. That should have made things clear to you. If you identify with everything, i.e., regarding everything as you, then you are the experience itself.