My Latest Solipsistic Insight

[JoshB]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's less intellectual, more autism; lack of social awareness and being self-focused.

You are too attached to this bro let it go

Your concern isn't with semantics you're too chicken to actually dive head first into solipsism at the highest degree

Edited 6 hours ago by JoshB

[Nemra]

37 minutes ago, JoshB said:

If other is an illusion you have infinite capacity to deny other in any shape or form.

I don't get what you mean.

[Nemra]

@JoshB, you mean deny when people tell you the truth?

 

[JoshB]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

@JoshB, you mean deny when people tell you the truth?

 

I mean when You Realize Being is Absolute there won't be anything outside your mind or imagination to determine reality in any capacity.

Conciousness has the ability to stop dreaming and or deny itself totally. 

The problem is you still hold things outside of you, even if its in a sneaky one non dual way. And there are degrees and depths in which you can hold others as being real. 

Even if you realized reality is one and others are pseudo separate (such as a partition of One Consciousness). This is still an imagined limitation. 

The only way someone can hold any valid claim of reality is if they are real, and if their realness is routed in your imagination. And you cease to imagine them then along with their existence goes their claims. 

So your own existence is first order to anyones claims or arguments of reality. 

Giving you infinite capacity for denial.

Edited 3 hours ago by JoshB

[Nemra]

@JoshB, ok.

1 hour ago, JoshB said:

Even if you realized reality is one and others are pseudo separate (such as a partition of One Consciousness). This is still an imagined limitation. 

That's what I noticed, that some people think that way.

I was mainly talking about others' internal experience being imaginary relative to one's own experience.

One time I was in a radically higher state, wherein my experience was revealed as total hallucination and changing limitations were possible. In my ordinary state that's unimaginable.

[JoshB]

16 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@JoshB, ok.

That's what I noticed, that some people think that way.

I was mainly talking about others' internal experience being imaginary relative to one's own experience.

One time I was in a radically higher state, wherein my experience was revealed as total hallucination and changing limitations were possible. In my ordinary state that's unimaginable.

That's the thing you've never seen it, you've never seen another mind outside your own. But because your consciousness is absolute any projection you make becomes reality. And this is only achievable because there is nothing outside your mind. 

Whether you are imagining other or not there still is only your mind and nothing else

There can not be others internal experience relative to you because your experience is absolute. 

Other relative experiences can only be made out of your absolute experience. 

Which also makes you responsible for absolutely everything. And even most spiritual people can not handle this level of responsibility. It makes the world on your shoulders look like a pebble. 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by JoshB

[JoshB]

Why do you think Buddhism, Hinduism, non duality, (neo) advaita, new age, Taoism, etc. Why do these systems exist? To prevent the full responsibility and realization of yourself as God. These ease the burden and off shore responsibility of creation. 

Edited 1 hour ago by JoshB

[JoshB]

Not that these branches can't generate amazing profound insight. They definitely can, but the more macro you get, the more problems start to arrise. 

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Nemra said:

In the end, I won't really care what it's called as long as I understand what I'm talking about.

Hence autism; lack of social awareness and self-focus.

 

8 hours ago, Nemra said:

I think if I don't break the logic, I still can use it and say that others aren't using solipsism correctly, like the word "God".

And I can do that too with "materialism". My definition of materialism is logically consistent with non-duality and God as an infinite Absolute mind.

 

8 hours ago, Nemra said:

If I break the logic, then I should either not use it or tell people my redefinition.

You do break the logic according to most people's conception of it.

 

8 hours ago, Nemra said:

Doesn't that say that the issue comes from people assuming that their ego is absolute?

Yes, exactly. You're starting to get it. The issue comes from the people you're talking to and you're feeding into it rather than dealing with it more intelligently (in my opinion).

 

8 hours ago, Nemra said:

I agree with you in that solipsism doesn't go far enough to say what the mind means.

Materialism establishes what matter is by making assumptions.

Different types of materialism stick to the common assumption of what matter is, but different types of solipsism stick to the logic that there isn't stuff outside of the mind or that external minds cannot be proven, even if they disagree on what the mind is.

Yes, but again, you do know I can define "matter" and "materialism" to be entirely compatible with non-duality? The only way you would be against that is if it clashes with most people's conception of those words. Yet you don't seem to care when it comes to solipsism.

In one case, the disagreement (between my/our conception vs the common conception) is about how to define "matter", in the other it's how to define "mind". In both cases it's about defining one word differently. Yet you seem to think there is a substantial difference(?)

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, JoshB said:

You are too attached to this bro let it go

No you.

 

5 hours ago, JoshB said:

Your concern isn't with semantics you're too chicken to actually dive head first into solipsism at the highest degree

I have dove into it. I have had the experience of being completely alone as consciousness.

[Willy Phallicus]

On 10/7/2026 at 6:56 AM, Carl-Richard said:

The solipsism word seems to be unique in that it works through a conflation that many people are just very inequipped to deal with (the distinction between personal minds and transpersonal Mind). For me personally, it wasn't before I had started my psychology degree that I started to get a firm grasp on the distinction. If you don't have that kind of background or haven't read similar stuff or other relevant fields like philosophy, it seems like the default is to not know the difference.

You're right in a sense but its the same thing if you told the uninitiated that "you are God" or "everything is God".  

Its not the word, its what it is implying or pointing too.  Some people just arent ready - which is fine of course but thats got nothing to do with the word solipsism.

Whats got me is how anyone who would claim any kind of God realization could say with a straight face that the solipsism signpost is so off that it shouldn't be used at all, ever.

[JoshB]

Just now, Willy Phallicus said:

You're right in a sense but its the same thing if you told the uninitiated that "you are God" or "everything is God".  

Its not the word, its what it is implying or pointing too.  Some people just arent ready - which is fine of course but thats got nothing to do with the word solipsism.

Whats got me is how anyone who would claim any kind of God realization could say with a straight face that the solipsism signpost is so off that it shouldn't be used at all, ever.

The Goat himself 

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

You're right in a sense but its the same thing if you told the uninitiated that "you are God" or "everything is God".

I've acknowledged "God" is also a problematic word which I'm particularly very hesitant of using around noobies, but it's not exactly the same, that's why I said it's unique, the reasons I gave above.

 

9 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Its not the word, its what it is implying or pointing too.  Some people just arent ready - which is fine of course but thats got nothing to do with the word solipsism.

Whats got me is how anyone who would claim any kind of God realization could say with a straight face that the solipsism signpost is so off that it shouldn't be used at all, ever.

Then I will ask you the same question I asked @Nemra: if I were to use the word "materialism" to describe God-realization/non-duality, what would be the problem there?

Edited 58 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[JoshB]

@Carl-Richard much love not trying to come off hostile. I wish nothing but the best for you 

 

[Willy Phallicus]

8 minutes ago, JoshB said:

The Goat himself 

Afternoon Batjesus!

"I agree with you in that solipsism doesn't go far enough to say what the mind means." Quote from Nemra

That goes for anything you can put into words.  There are no words.  No one can tell you that youre in love, you just know it.  Anything you call or name it is just another label, concept or idea that it is not limited by.  Its impossible to speak of.  One cannot simply transfer gnosis to another - its personal, direct experience with what a bad ass muthafkr that you truly are you beautiful son of a bitch.

Solipsism, like any other method or label can only point you to the door, youre still the one that has to walk through it.  If words worked Jesus would have never been crucified and maybe life on planet durp wouldnt be one perpetrated outrage after another.  So its not solipsism its spoken language altogether.  Solipsism is being framed and railroaded for no good reason.

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

if I were to use the word "materialism" to describe God-realization/non-duality, what would be the problem there?

No.

I dont care how anyone defines it.  I care when they tell me they care about how I define it.

But again, if you have experienced true gnosis, why you would have any issue whatsoever with the word solipsism defies common sense.

 

[JoshB]

5 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Afternoon Batjesus!

"I agree with you in that solipsism doesn't go far enough to say what the mind means." Quote from Nemra

That goes for anything you can put into words.  There are no words.  No one can tell you that youre in love, you just know it.  Anything you call or name it is just another label, concept or idea that it is not limited by.  Its impossible to speak of.  One cannot simply transfer gnosis to another - its personal, direct experience with what a bad ass muthafkr that you truly are you beautiful son of a bitch.

Solipsism, like any other method or label can only point you to the door, youre still the one that has to walk through it.  If words worked Jesus would have never been crucified and maybe life on planet durp wouldnt be one perpetrated outrage after another.  So its not solipsism its spoken language altogether.  Solipsism is being framed and railroaded for no good reason.

No.

I dont care how anyone defines it.  I care when they tell me they care about how I define it.

But again, if you have experienced true gnosis, why you would have any issue whatsoever with the word solipsism defies common sense.

 

Because its not really the word its the definition. The word nazi bothers you depending on whos saying it. 

[Willy Phallicus]

1 minute ago, JoshB said:

The word nazi bothers you depending on whos saying it. 

Willy's advice is the same as Leo's.

Use it as an opportunity to ask yourself why that's the case in your experience.