My Latest Solipsistic Insight

[JoshB]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't need the term "solipsism" to grasp the ramifications of Universal consciousness.

 

Ok, but nothing in here needs "solipsism". Distinguishing between Absolute Infinite Mind and limited finite mind, no "solipsism" needed. Even realizing that Universal consciousness is One and thus alone, does not need the term "solipsism". It's actually a completely unnecessary word. "One" and "alone" will suffice.

 

Your one-sentence engagement contradicts this statement.

I am conscious I am the only thing that exists which makes me the ultimate authority on the subject.

If you are the only thing there is that automatically makes you the highest position, that is the ramifications of God's sovereignty 

You are trying to strip the solipsism out of oneness and it's corrupting it

Such as replacing Solipsism for Universal Consciousness at least in the terms you are sharing.

Edited 10 hours ago by JoshB

[JoshB]

@Carl-Richard

Edited 10 hours ago by JoshB

[JoshB]

@Carl-Richard

[kavaris]

Im not even right, thats how wrong i am.... or wait... it didnt come out right.

[JoshB]

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, JoshB said:

You are trying to strip the solipsism out of oneness and it's corrupting it

Such as replacing Solipsism for Universal Consciousness at least in the terms you are sharing.

The only reason you are using the word "solipsism" is because you're parroting Leo's vocabulary. Nobody else in the spiritual sphere (that I know of) has seriously used the word solipsism as an active part of their vocabulary to describe Absolute Mind / Universal consciousness, And if they did use it, it was as a passing remark or caveat trying to clear up a misunderstanding.

Edited 9 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[JoshB]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The only reason you are using the word "solipsism" is because you're parroting Leo's vocabulary. Nobody else in the spiritual sphere (that I know of) has seriously used the word solipsism as an active part of their vocabulary to describe Absolute Mind / Universal consciousness,

The spiritual sphere is an illusion you are imagining 

There is NO Spiritual Sphere ONLY YOU

Because No One in that Spiritual Sphere Understands God to the degree I am talking about

Edited 9 hours ago by JoshB

[kavaris]

1 hour ago, JoshB said:

Because No One in that Spiritual Sphere Understands God to the degree I am talking about

 But.... Like.... Why though? Like why is it "im the guy up here, yous are down here"? Like, is that a nice thing to say?

[AtmanIsBrahman]

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Seeing happens from nowhere" does not tell you anything about the structure of what is being seen. "Someone's eye" (a body part) is what is seen, it's not seeing itself. So you can't say anything about the state of body parts or any activity related to them based on the notion of "seeing happens from nowhere". It's a conflation of two different domains.

This is the perpetual trap solipsists on this forum go into. They start wanting to talk about the absoluteness of seeing/being itself but then they want to use that to make very specific claims about what is being seen and what is possible within what is being seen. They're two different domains. The nothingness of seeing betrays nothing about the nature of things that are seen. It betrays exactly nothing.

So you're saying the realization that seeing comes from nowhere isn't enough to ascribe any properties to seeing, right? I would agree, but it being YOU is not a property. It is an absolute, the claim being that YOU=NOTHING absolutely. 

I think you fail to consider that people on this forum might actually have direct consciousness of solipsism and aren't deluded or conceptually confused.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

I think you fail to consider that people on this forum might actually have direct consciousness of solipsism and aren't deluded or conceptually confused.

Not at all. It's when said people open their mouths that they seem to be conceptually confused a lot of the time. You don't have to be insecure about whether you have direct experience or not and people denying this or not. That's not the issue. It's how it's being talked about and the implications that are being made. Implications like whatever is happening related to body parts, other human beings. If your idea of solipsism involves statements about what can or cannot happen in the reality of form, the reality of things, objects, states, activities, and it's also supposedly absolute, you're already misunderstanding, you're already conceptually confused.

Absolute consciousness, aside from being absolute, is neutral to whatever metaphysical model you want to impose on reality. Solipsism, in so far you want to describe particular structure and limitations of reality, is a metaphysical model, a conceptual framework. What is not conceptual is absolute being, and nothing, literally nothing, can be said for it other than it exists absolutely and there is nothing that will change this, nothing specific in formed reality being the case or not the case will change this. The states of other people, people's eyes, whatever form or configuration of relative reality you can think of, is irrelevant to the absoluteness of being.

Edited 55 minutes ago by Carl-Richard