My Latest Solipsistic Insight

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, JoshB said:

I'm convinced you absorbed almost 0 of the video 

True, because I speak from direct experience.

[Sugarcoat]

6 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Ya think? Thats the one thing Ive been saying since I got here.  If language could solve the problem of getting the hamunits to self actualize we'd all be greek gods right now living the good life.

God realization is very solipsistic in nature hence the use of the word solipsism.  Its just not popular because the idea that you're alone is terrifying as it shatters every metric you previously used to figure out your place in the world.

I meant that when people write about their insights etc. They might talk about the nature of reality but some come off as particularly egoic to me, is what I meant by “sensing beyond the words”. 

Everyone does this to some degree ig, I’m sharing my perspective.

Now, idk exactly what you mean by “solipsistic” (there’s lots of replies here so I don’t remember it all). I don’t agree that it’s not popular for the reason you say. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Willy Phallicus]

My lucid dream characters get really fucked off when I remind them theyre not real either.

 

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Willy Phallicus said:

My lucid dream characters get really fucked off when I remind them theyre not real either.

I think they are about as real as you and me.

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-10-08 at 2:04 PM, Nemra said:

If you deconstruct your experience, you will understand how your experience, whatever that is, being the only one is not a limitation.

You can view my previous posts to understand what I mean.

Theres many posts so I’m going off this one for now…

”your experience being the only one”

It’s not clear what you mean here. Overall, and once again, I’ve seen both claims of “all of reality” then on the other hand it’s spoken of in a particularly dualistic and personal way, with strong preference for using words typically used for the human experience hmmmm

[Willy Phallicus]

4 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

They might talk about the nature of reality but they come off as particularly egoic to me

Cuz we're talking from the ego.  We cant chat otherwise.  Otherwise it defaults to what it really is which is just God inside his own mind instead of pretending to have an external conversation between Sugarcoat and Willy on a forum on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a universe.

[Willy Phallicus]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think they are about as real as you and me.

I think we get an edge but they definitely have the same source material.

[Nemra]

26 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think they are about as real as you and me.

You think?

They are. Not symbolically, but literally. Of course, when you dream them.

This is the dream.

Edited 3 hours ago by Nemra

[Sugarcoat]

46 minutes ago, JoshB said:

If you are dreaming me at night does my dream character you are imagining have a mind outside of your dream? 

Not fair comparison imo, the way it seems you’re implying things

43 minutes ago, JoshB said:

No I am showing the absolute ontological nature of existence being your mind i am not speaking tongues or analogy 

There is no interpretation there is only direct realization of your mind as the substance of all of existence. 

I could continue pointing out flaws I see in your logic but it doesn’t seem to get anywhere so…

Edited 3 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Sugarcoat]

10 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Cuz we're talking from the ego.  We cant chat otherwise.  Otherwise it defaults to what it really is which is just God inside his own mind instead of pretending to have an external conversation between Sugarcoat and Willy on a forum on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a universe.

I said “particularly egoic”, not as in having a self/ego AT ALL. You can chat without being “particularly egoic” 😂😂😂

Edited 3 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Nemra]

23 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

There's many posts so I’m going off this one for now…

”your experience being the only one”

It’s not clear what you mean here. Overall, and once again, I’ve seen both claims of “all of reality” then on the other hand it’s spoken of in a particularly dualistic and personal way, with strong preference for using words typically used for the human experience hmmmm

@Sugarcoat, I have given up. 😄

Look from another angle:

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

The directness of experience beautifully merges you with everything within your experience, as the existence of anything has been the prerequisite for your experience to be actual in the first place.

This melts you!

You become absolutely intimate with everything because they are you.

This unification is Love itself!

Absolute Solipsistic Love!

 

[Carl-Richard]

51 minutes ago, Nemra said:

You think?

They are. Not symbolically, but literally. Of course, when you dream them.

This is the dream.

I think they're experiencing the world as you and me do.

[Willy Phallicus]

"hrrrm I really dont know what you mean by solipsism even though its basically self explanatory.  me being the one imagining all cant be called solipsism for reasons.  its almost satanic"

Good stuff.

[Nemra]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think they're experiencing the world as you and me do.

You are experiencing the dreams, not them. 

Now, they don't exist because you're not dreaming them in this dream.

[Sugarcoat]

48 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Sugarcoat, I have given up. 😄

Look from another angle:

 

Same 

[Carl-Richard]

20 minutes ago, Nemra said:

You are experiencing the dreams, not them. 

Now, they don't exist because you're not dreaming them in this dream.

God as infinite consciousness does not tell you about whether an apple falls down or up. Likewise, it doesn't tell you about whether an apple is experiencing something you don't or not. If you want to make statements about such things, you postulate a model and say "this is my logic, my reasoning, my best guess, based on x assumption, x inference, etc.)". For explaining states in the world, it seems most reasonable to say that people in your dreams experience the world as you do. For not explaining anything, you don't open your mouth and rest in Oneness.

[JoshB]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

True, because I speak from direct experience.

You do not speak from direct experience even leo calls you out clearly for denying Truth.

Thank God you got demoddded which is tale sign 

Edited 1 hour ago by JoshB

[r0ckyreed]

It just doesn’t quite make sense to me yet how a knock at my door is merely hallucinated. From my experience, a knock at a door and a voice that says “hello” presupposes a human is behind that door that I cannot experience but yet exists. I don’t see how you would say the only thing that exists is the door, the sound of knocking and the sound of the voice I identify as human. Whether it is a robot or a human behind that door, I know that when I open the door, I will witness something that was outside of my experience and when I close the door, I won’t see it, but that human still exists and they can even keep talking. I don’t see how you all can seriously defend this idealism position when you can easily test and disprove that it isn’t merely imagination.

Saying that everything outside of my experience is imaginary is creating a duality between experience being actual and “outside” of experience being imaginary. If everything is imaginary then that means everything is also real, which makes saying everything is imaginary meaningless. It would only be meaningful if there was something that wasn’t imaginary. But since everything is imaginary, that means nothing is imaginary. 

I think I have disproven this through my logical argument here. The logic seems completely sound. If everything is imaginary, then nothing is. 

You can easily test this all by having a friend stand outside your door and just opening and closing a door. Have him stand behind it and contemplate whether your friend exists behind the door. Open the door and realize he does exist. Then close the door again. This time have him talk while the door is closed. Notice you have access to his voice but not to the sight of his body. But that does not mean his body doesn’t exist. Open the door and you will see that God is hiding things from itself.

If I am wrong, please tell me how this is wrong?

Edited 47 minutes ago by r0ckyreed