My Latest Solipsistic Insight

[Inliytened1]

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I agree with this but you can put spilt milk back in its container.  The I cannot needs to be questioned.  

I get the point 

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Willy Phallicus said:

So have I.  Its a personal preference as I have clearly outlined.  Your personal preference is shaped by what you personally think the words are doing or not doing.  What you claim the word solipsism or even God to be doing or not doing does not align with reality and you will always lose a debate with reality.

My personal preference in this case is in line with my understanding of how reality works.
 

8 hours ago, Willy Phallicus said:

The reality is the word solipsism isn't actually spiritual cancer and ruinous decay.  Neither is the word God.  I can use an airplane to enhance life or bomb the fuck out of it.  Its all how the tool is being used.

Or who the tool is used on. Or what context these people regularly inhabit.

 

8 hours ago, Willy Phallicus said:

And I would 100% agree that may be the case for some people if not most of them.  Anecdotal evidence only but 95% of all self proclaimed spiritual folk have their heads up their own asses.  That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the word solipsism it just means the mansters are failing on account of internal processing errors which makes it really difficult to navigate the field successfully.

It's fine that you don't see how culture can inform any decision. That's just not how I play.

 

8 hours ago, Willy Phallicus said:

There is no equity in the world of man because man is little more than an ape with primitive appetites and drives - man is a backwards vulgar hick with an insatiable appetite for conspicuous consumption and a deeply regressive status fetish.  That aint languages fault although to your point it can be used that way.  I just know where to assign the blame, if any.

I don't create a binary and assign blame either/or. I just also acknowledge culture has an impact on how teaching occurs. That it has zero impact is structurally the harder position to argue. Of course whether you act on it is again up to the degrees and boundaries you feel comfortable with.

Edited 18 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Willy Phallicus]

32 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

My personal preference in this case is in line with my understanding of how reality works.

Okay. Be nice if you gave everyone else the same entitlement you're fine with claiming.  Its not like anyone owns the trademark on Truth.  The Truth is what it is regardless of how how the believers or skeptics regard it.

32 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Or who the tool is used on. Or what context these people regularly inhabit.

If anyone gets conscripted into a demonic semen drinking cult then thats on them.  There's no nice way to say it.  I can tell you that you are God.  If you get a little glimpse and proceed to run out the door and start telling everyone to start bowing down to you and to keep you in a life of obscene luxury and young virgins then its not the message or the information that failed, its most definitely you.

The sooner we can acknowledge the obvious the quicker we can back to the main point of how you refuse to acknowledge the stupidly obvious.

Edited 17 hours ago by Willy Phallicus

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Okay. Be nice if you gave everyone else the same entitlement you're fine with claiming.  Its not like anyone owns the trademark on Truth.  The Truth is what it is regardless of how how the believers or skeptics regard it.

Yeah. Did you think anything different?

 

6 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

If anyone gets conscripted into a demonic semen drinking cult then thats on them.  There's no nice way to say it.  I can tell you that you are God.  If you get a little glimpse and proceed to run out the door and start telling everyone to start bowing down to you and to keep in a life of obscene luxury and young virgins then its not the message or the information that failed, its most definitely you.

The sooner we can acknowledge the obvious the quicker we can back to the main point of how you refuse to acknowledge the stupidly obvious.

You have a way of argumentation I call "assertion, no explanation".

Edited 17 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Willy Phallicus]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You have a way of argumentation I call "assertion, no explanation".

Im doing way better than that.

Im not just calling you an asshole, I am telling you why you are being an asshole.

Big difference.

Ive had this convo with a million jesus and atheist assholes who can't handle any rational criticism of their faith.  Literally the same argument every time with some of the furniture rearranged.

Im dogma free and you have this dogma that being dogma free is being dogmatic somehow and the proof you're correct is how strongly you can cling to that dogma.

Youre going to tell me that a specific word or set of words or framing of words and what they could potentially conjure prevents or otherwise prohibits the resolution of the paradox (if not lead you into a demonic cult which is ironically antisolipsistic behavior) and Im going to be forced to remind you thats the case for every word or words because gnosis isn't imparted to you on account of how fluent you are in the english language. What you have is a basic understanding of the lesser mysteries. Not Truth.

The end of language is where real creative gnosis starts.  Where other ends is where you begin. The Truth is on the inside where I can never find it because thats not where my gaze is centered but I must keep looking for the Lost Keys yadda yadda - but one thing I can briefly observe is that there is no one and nothing to see when I enter the kingdom within as I am being called to do. Just dont call that solipsism or the satan that doesnt exist apart from you is going to start hiding under your bed at night and whisper dark thoughts to you after he transmutes Leo into his final form and becomes Dorian Gray.  And Im the religious nut job out of the two of us.

Just lol.

[cetus]

@Carl-Richard @Willy Phallicus  Are you two still at it 24 hrs. later. Really?

Next exchange between you two will result in warning points and a nice long suspension from posting.

Consider this a friendly warning.

 @Willy Phallicus Watch your vulgar mouth dude. You came this close yesterday so don't push it.

[Cubbage]

 

[Carl-Richard]

Me sharing my opinion about what words I think are useful for teaching in which situations shouldn't lead to a crashout where 1. you call the holder of such an opinion not awake or "clueless" by virtue of holding it and 2. feeling like you're being personally persecuted. I will of course react strongly to that (especially the former), as it seems entirely unwarranted and rhetoric devoid of substance (like asserting "you're wrong" without explaining yourself). I hope @cetus understands this and other moderators.

Edited 6 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

19 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

It is to a degree. Once you meet God you can decide how you want to interpret it after the fact.  Awakening and integration are different things. You can misinterpret God. Or you can get God right.  But it will still be after the fact.  

Based(?)

[Carl-Richard]

23 hours ago, Nemra said:

Don't be so concerned about what people think.

Uhm ok. So don't be so concerned about what I think (?).

 

23 hours ago, Nemra said:

I could easily say that God is BS just because of the beliefs people have about it.

It is.

 

23 hours ago, Nemra said:

You still have the time to engage with the subject matter and respond to my post properly.

Ok. You did a simple equivocation of "actually, if I redefine what you mean by 'talking about', you're wrong!". I don't think that's worth responding to. You clearly know the difference between a pointer and what is pointed to. No need to play equivocation games.

Edited 4 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Nemra]

@Carl-Richard, calling basic consistency an "equivocation game" just means your rule failed its own test.

You are free to believe what you wish and limit yourself as you choose.

Edited 4 hours ago by Nemra

[Carl-Richard]

53 minutes ago, Nemra said:

calling basic consistency an "equivocation game" just means your rule failed its own test.

So you're saying you don't know the distinction between a pointer and what it is pointing to?

Edited 4 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Nemra]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

So you're saying you don't know the distinction between a pointer and what it is pointing to?

So, you're saying you don't know that you are failing at being logically consistent?

[Leo Gura]

Guys, please keep your debates civil.

[Willy Phallicus]

13 hours ago, cetus said:

Consider this a friendly warning.

Nah Ill consider it for what it actually is. 

Hostility masquerading as something else which seems to be a thing with me and a mod or two.

13 hours ago, cetus said:

Watch your vulgar mouth dude. You came this close yesterday so don't push it.

If people want to go public with their incorrect assumptions and defend them with the religious fervor of a suicide bomber someone should probably try talking sense.  

My use of profanity punctuates my very valid criticisms of being labelled a demonic semen slurping cultist because Im not a card carrying member of the Holy Church of Anti Solipsism.  A very mature, serious conversation that obviously deserves my very best behavior.

Just perma ban me now.   Who wants a mod on the truth > * epistemic rigor conformity examples mega thread forum flexing on them like Im the one that needs to do better?

Not me.  

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Willy Phallicus

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Guys, please keep your debates civil.

Willys the real deal.  And he likes McDonald's and the Brewers.