My Latest Solipsistic Insight

[Deadpixel]

@Someone here don’t worry man you’re fake. Actualized is just a dream fantasy Website I have of other people having awakenings. You’re not here

[Nemra]

I'm beginning to regret that I went in-depth here.

Edited 8 hours ago by Nemra

[Someone here]

8 minutes ago, Deadpixel said:

@Someone here don’t worry man you’re fake. Actualized is just a dream fantasy Website I have of other people having awakenings. You’re not here

I’m here. Why would I talk to you if I believed you were merely an inert character in my mind or dream?

 

Leo, this makes no sense, and it’s not funny anymore. This solipsism bullshit has gone far enough. I suggest he cross-reference his insights on psychedelics with those of other enlightened people and double- and triple-check his position on this point, particularly regarding the idea that equating oneself with God is identical to the philosophy of solipsism.

at this point , this is dangerous misleading from Leo’s part .

Edited 7 hours ago by Someone here

[kavaris]

7 hours ago, kavaris said:

Ive been liking "-copia", etc.

im adding to somethin i said, cause i found this wiki article describing the "vertiginous question": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_am_I_me%3F

... except that, if thats suppose to be a scientific view ("we are missing the constellation view...") then what even is a constellation view, right? Its like "We have one missing element from consciousness thing. The thing outside it, of which no one can verify, and that defeats the purpose of what we were saying". Like... "Why am i me" doesnt also ask about, "what is the universe, and is it looking at me" as that sounds absurd, so why this person suggested it, i dont know. I feel you could then ask about anything ~ "Why does my carpet watch me when i sleep" or something.

Or you replace the inital question, and refer to the initial subject as that universal questioner/observer.

Edited 7 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

Like, just inflamming science for a sec, is that something theyd say, a constellation view? Id like to know what a constellation view is, as thats interesting.  Is that like, "How Andromeda sees us"?

[kavaris]

If i dont find out how Ursa Major sees us, then i m not gona be able to proceed much more, im gonna have to just give up, because the whole reason i signed up was for the constellation view, from every constellation in view, including, but not limited to  Ursa major/minor   Like, can we find out the thought process of scientists, so we can go to college at 50 years of age, and succeed.. or wat, like... I need the constellation view or im not gonna make it. Okay, thats the end of the rant.

[r0ckyreed]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

What external world?

The things that exist behind me. I can blindfold myself, put hearing-blocking headphones on, and walk down 5th avenue in NYC and there will still be cars that exist that will run me over. How exactly can I get run over if reality is only what I perceive? How could a car drive without a person and their mind that I do not have access to? Maybe it is an AI that is driving it, but in most cases, it is a human mind that is operating the vehicle. That human driving the car has a race, gender, and story I will never know about.
 

Your toilet exists right now even though I cannot perceive it. You have sex with women that happens behind closed doors. The women getting pregnant from sex happened even though I’m not aware of it. All the children born or are the result of 2 people having sex, of which I never experienced. I have never witnessed a murder but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.There’s so much I don’t experience, but yet it exists. Thats what I mean by the external world.

Edited 6 hours ago by r0ckyreed

[JoshB]

37 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

The things that exist behind me. I can blindfold myself, put hearing-blocking headphones on, and walk down 5th avenue in NYC and there will still be cars that exist that will run me over. How exactly can I get run over if reality is only what I perceive? How could a car drive without a person and their mind that I do not have access to? Maybe it is an AI that is driving it, but in most cases, it is a human mind that is operating the vehicle. That human driving the car has a race, gender, and story I will never know about.
 

Your toilet exists right now even though I cannot perceive it. You have sex with women that happens behind closed doors. The women getting pregnant from sex happened even though I’m not aware of it. All the children born or are the result of 2 people having sex, of which I never experienced. I have never witnessed a murder but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.There’s so much I don’t experience, but yet it exists. Thats what I mean by the external world.

This is a strawman ( not to be mean). The solution is simple. You're dreaming of stuff happening outside of you and your experience. 

You have had plenty of dreams at night with similar "external scenarios". You dream of events at night that transpire outside of reach. You dream someone goes to the store and they come back with groceries. 

And the substance and creation of all of that came from your mind. 

Now the only difference here vs a night dream relativily speaking. Is your are imagining it to be REAL

 

Edited 5 hours ago by JoshB

[JoshB]

Reality can be dreamt in such a powerful way it appears stuff is happening outside of awareness. And because God can lower its level of consciousness to a human. It appears objective and external. 

And because identity is never questioned the level of consciousness never raises to see that these were self induced illusions. 

If your identity is never expanded to include the whole reality inc all others. Then recognizing that you created all of reality can not transpire.

Edited 5 hours ago by JoshB

[JoshB]

@r0ckyreed point to something outside your awareness. You cant not even in theory. 

[Nemra]

@r0ckyreed

Edited 5 hours ago by Nemra

[kavaris]

Understanding (as in, 'disproving the dream) is fifty percent of what it means to awaken, exactly 50, where as, 'awakening is exactly double the understanding of understanding, and enlightentenment is another 2x, exactly double of awakening, because enlightenment (in a strict sense) should carry both, it should then have the initial idea, the awakening idea, and then another multiplier that can somehow be in the knowing of what just happened, and by the logic, oneness... It just ends, like i dont think the dream has infinite scaling lvls in one sitting, you escalate into light, or you die into light, or... you accidentally realize theres a light, or accidentally experience it, and then, theoretically, you should just be that light, but then that would be enlightenment (strict sense).and not us talking about it here right now, and i only even say this now cause.. i just had (literally 1 min. ago) a weird, stupid dream where it felt like that (2x of this, 2x of that, 2x of that, the end?)

Edited 4 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

If someone told me that tho, it would make no sennse, so i can also see why no one should even get wat i said.

[Carl-Richard]

23 hours ago, Nemra said:

So when you replace x with God, solipsism doesn't break.

It does break because you changed the meaning of x. That's the entire point.

This entire thing you did here where you tried to retain the syntax between the two different understandings is more or less schizophrenia, just a lot of things irrelevant to the larger discussion. The problem is the semantic meaning is different, not the syntax.

Besides, you only chose quite arbitrary sentences. I can retain the syntax for two materialism understandings but they will still be different semantically of course (by definition) which is what the actual problem is:

"x is all that exists". Replace it with "matter" (as in the common perception of materialism) or "God" (as in my for-the-sake-of-argument perception of materialism, where also God = matter) and the syntax is retained. Yet of course the meaning of the word "matter" in the two understandings is different, which is again what the actual problem is.

Likewise (or conversely), I can try to and fail to retain the syntax between two understandings of solipsism:

"x is the only sensory-bound, biologically body-centered locus of experience that exists". Replace "x" with "my mind" and you'll get the common perception of solipsism, replace it with "God" (as in the Cosmic solipsism perception) and the statement is false.

Agaiiin, the problem is we're clashing with the meaning of the word in the common cultural perception of it; the syntax of a few sentences is irrelevant.

 

By the way, using algebraic notation in text is another textbook example of a blunder of communication (it's more often needlessly complicated) and a sure way to make yourself think you're saying something insightful but it's in actuality wrong because you've overcomplicated it but you can't keep track of how.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Nemra said:

He focuses on how people will abuse solipsism, which also works against him because God is way more abused than solipsism, and then he somehow is fine with people parroting words from spiritual traditions but not when it's from Leo.

I've said multiple times in here that "God" also sucks as a word when talking to noobies generally. I just think "solipsism" sucks extra hard, again generally. Feel free to explain why you think "God" is more "abused" than solipsism.

The larger point is to know your audience. Rupert Spira has a good view on this:

6:44

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Nemra]

@r0ckyreed

Quote

A hallucination is a perception in the absence of an external context stimulus that has the compelling sense of reality.

The above is from Wikipedia.

Each of your sensory field is distinguished from each other by a distinct qualia, which are what make your sensory phenomena actual.

So, you will never find any sensory phenomenon outside of its appropriate sensory field, and the sensory fields cannot be the cause of each other, which means sensory fields do not have an external stimulus.

Your sensory fields are a hallucination.

So, to say that the external world outside your sensory field is actual invalidates your sensory fields being a hallucination. But if you say that the actuality of the external world is a hallucination, it wouldn't be invalidated.

Edited 34 minutes ago by Nemra

[Nemra]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It does break because you changed the meaning of x. That's the entire point.

I don't understand how you don't see that for materialism, x is assumed to be the underlying substance of everything while assuming that x is an unintelligent thing that qualia arises from.

Solipsism says nothing exists or can be proven to be known outside of x without saying what x is. The assumption of solipsism is that x must be absolute (I ignored this assumption, sorry).

However, my main point was that God breaks materialism because of its assumptions. It seems that x can be absolute, but when you put a thing that is absolute and intelligent it breaks.

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

By the way, using algebraic notation in text is another textbook example of a blunder of communication (it's usually needlessly complicated) and a sure way to make yourself think you're saying something insightful but it's in actuality wrong because you've overcomplicated it but you can't keep track of how.

I removed the words "matter" and "mind" for you so that you could see where the assumptions lie, and it helped me as well, as you see.

You complicated things when you tried to bring up materialism. Materialism is inherently not intelligent.

I won't continue arguing about materialism. I'm tired and this is not the appropriate thread for this, so we are starting to get off topic.

Edited 1 hour ago by Nemra

[Willy Phallicus]

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Again, the only reason people use the word in here to this extent is because Leo made a video on it, there was no mentioning of the word in relationship to non-duality anywhere near the same extent before that video.

Yeah here maybe.  The circles I ran in had been using the term for nearly two decades - "experience that is very solipsistic in nature" as opposed to "Absolute Solipsism" but its still saying the same thing.  'Solipsism' (mind = all)  has been a part of non dual traditions for like 2000 years if not longer.  Pythagoras taught the same thing except he didnt call it solipsism.  Same goes for pretty much any teacher worth their salt for the last 2500 years.  "I and the Father are one" is a description of the same principle.

"You are God and there are no other Gods" has been around since the hills were young.  Science wasnt a thing yet.  Sects like the Sufi's have known about this ages.  In the old pre christian essene brotherhoods you were baptized into, at age 13 you were given the copy of the Good News (bible) - oh hey funny story, You are God btw.  You say non dual and I say solipsism.  Both are pointing to the same experiential knowledge of Being.  To be caught up in which label is better is like pissing into the wind - all words and traditions fail not just one or the other.  People can get their panties wadded up over the word God too but then you become God and you realize it was you that made the word (world) up and then you're cool with it.  Everything is perfect and going according to plan.  Human cant blaspheme the miracle no matter how hard they try.

Leos video on the topic stood out to me after one viewing for one reason.  Im a big fan of utilizing blashphemy against every sacred belief and then some, its worked well for me personally on my journey.  The first two thirds of Leos vid I say are the closest thing to a master class on the topic for the current crop of legitimate truth seekers if there ever was one.  He wasnt saying anything new - not even close -  there's nothing new under the sun but he wittily got to straight to a core truth by putting it in a 100% authentic, honest and direct way by using what he knew religious, philosophical, scientific and spiritual communities would chafe at.  Its a clue those groups dont have a clue.  For others, its the complete opposite.  Ultimately, God doesn't care.

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If it really was that useful for describing non-duality, you would've expected consensus among other teachers and you would've probably already heard about it. That Leo presented it as some idiosyncratic and radical thing ("Absolute Solipsism ooooo") is partially true because it is that, but not because it's revolutionary or deep, but because it's generally seen as a blunder of teaching and teachers refrain from it for that reason.

Cmon man, when has consensus ever proved anything?  If the masses have proven anything its that they will always choose wrong.  What has any teacher really accomplished?  The best ones all got co-opted and taken over centuries ago.  There's a million 'you are god' teachers and have been for a millennia - the message didn't fail the people the people failed the message.  So its not the word solipsism man, its really not that hard to figure where the problem is.  

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's of course dependent on your level of taste for clarity and empathy to the people you're engaging with

If theyre going to be idiots and deny solipsism on the grounds they have a different label for the same exact thing which is less authentic than the word solipsism and tell me Im wrong because I refuse to lower my standards to their highschool level of understanding of the topic then its probably not going to go well for them. 

Edited 30 minutes ago by Willy Phallicus

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

I don't understand how you don't see that for materialism, x is assumed to be the underlying substance of everything while assuming that x is an unintelligent thing that qualia arises from.

That's the common cultural conception of the term.

 

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

Solipsism says nothing exists or can be proven to be known outside of x without saying what x is. The assumption of solipsism is that x must be absolute (I ignored this assumption, sorry).

That's wrong in the common cultural conception of the term. The only thing that exists in that conception is dependent on limitations associated with the body and related sensory organs like eyes (hence the confusion in the original thread, talking about literal biological eyes as if it matters to an infinite being). The "ego mind" is the subjective perspective and derivations/abstractions of those structures (e.g. thoughts are abstractions of sensations).

When a solipsist in the common conception says their experience is the only thing that exists, they reliably refer to limitations of their sensory field (eyes, bodies, positioning), and at the center of this sensory field is not coincidentally their own body and the thoughts that are generally related to that body (the ego mind). The ego mind is a software that accompanies and is created to conserve the body. That software and its projections (objects, distinctions, sense perceptions themselves) is at the center of the common solipsistic conception.

 

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

I removed the words "matter" and "mind" for you so that you could see where the assumptions lie, and it helped as well, as you see.

Firstly, no, you created a red herring that it was about syntax rather than semantics. Secondly, introducing excess linguistic entities (especially generalizing ones like algebraic symbols that by definition have multiple meanings) and odd unnatural text that breaks with natural speaking patterns (excess syllogistic language) reliably decreases comprehension.

Edited just now by Carl-Richard

[r0ckyreed]

5 hours ago, JoshB said:

@r0ckyreed point to something outside your awareness. You cant not even in theory. 

I just did with the examples I gave. If someone scares me from behind, then it is implied that they existed behind me before I was aware that they touched me.

Are you really going to say that what is behind you doesn’t exist because you aren’t perceiving it now? Because I can turn my head and that stuff exists. 
 

This isn’t a strawman. This is just how consciousness works. When I go out to my car and find it has been vandalized, I don’t just assume I am hallucinating it. I assume that someone vandalized my car while I was unaware. I can even view camera footage of that happening that wasn’t in my awareness before. Things have causality to it.