Are Leo’s teaching based on solipsism?

[TheAvatarState]

@Farnaby oooooo, what's really going to bake your noodle is if Leo would have the same teachings of the Solipsist hadn't said anything? 

[tsuki]

7 hours ago, Farnaby said:

I can see how everything is interpreted by my mind and thus subjective. But non existent, dreamt-up, etc., has never been my direct experience.

It goes way deeper than that. But that's a good start.

Have your understanding ever been kicked from beneath your feet so violently that you were not even sure that you are not supposed to hover mid-air? Go there.

Don't believe Leo's teachings unless you have direct experience of them. Seek direct experience.

[Farnaby]

Thank you for your detailed answers!

Until now, my direct experience always has been from my point of view. When I say my POV I don’t think of my ego as something real. I mean the consciousness that I have direct access to and that consciousness could very well just be a fragment of an infinite consciousness but that infinity is not something in my direct experience.

When someone tells me other people and everything I perceive as being outside of myself doesn’t really exist, it is a claim that can’t be proven nor disproven. Kind of like saying: after you die, you go to heaven/hell, reincarnate, etc.

What I could have direct experience of if I had the right tools would be that there is matter/atoms as well as emptiness/void. These atoms interact and my brain is capable of interpreting this stimulation and transform it into the forms I perceive. So in that sense I see how every appearance is an illusion.

What I don’t see is how everything doesn’t exist outside of my mind, as if there was no outside world, no other minds, nothing that exists beyond my mind.

When someone dies, the life of those of us who didn’t die continues. That, for me, is enough proof of a world that exists independently of one’s own mind. Sure, for that person it possibly doesn’t exist anymore (or maybe it does, we don’t know that), but for the rest of us it does.

Anyways, I really appreciate that you took your time to explain all of this stuff!

Edited September 4, 2019 by Farnaby

[remember]

@Farnaby what do you believe in? did you ever find out about that? except of how the bodysoulmind might or might not be recycled into its single parts that might or might not be separate entities. what if all of it IS just the illusion of a matrix, and this world is nothing but an illusion. how do you know? despite solipsism how do you know i am not you communicating with myself?

Edited September 4, 2019 by remember

[Farnaby]

21 minutes ago, remember said:

@Farnaby what do you believe in? did you ever find out about that? except of how the bodysoulmind might or might not be recycled into its single parts that might or might not be separate entities. what if all of it IS just the illusion of a matrix, and this world is nothing but an illusion. how do you know? despite solipsism how do you know i am not you communicating with myself?

@remember That’s the problem. There is no way to find out if it’s all just an illusion or if it isn’t.

Everything (direct experience, science, culture, language, physical pain, etc.) suggests that it’s less likely to be an illusion, so why believe in the most unlikely option? Has anyone ever proven that it’s all an illusion? As far as I know there’s much more proof of an outer world existing and being filtered and perceived by us (and plants, animals, etc.).

[remember]

Just now, Farnaby said:

@remember That’s the problem. There is no way to find out if it’s all just an illusion or if it isn’t.

Everything (direct experience, science, culture, language, physical pain, etc.) suggests that it’s less likely to be an illusion, so why believe in the most unlikely option? Has anyone ever proven that it’s all an illusion? As far as I know there’s much more proof of an outer world existing and being filtered and perceived by us (and plants, animals, etc.).

but then where does outer or inner begin?

[Farnaby]

1 minute ago, remember said:

but then where does outer or inner begin?

I would say our skin. Of course everything is connected and the limits are blurry and everything affects each other. 

But that doesn’t prove that the chair I’m sitting on isn’t made up of matter that exists. 

[remember]

@Farnaby  and where is outer and where is inner at the skin? where does skin separate from water or air or air and water separate from your skin? how can you know skin is more than your senses? would you say your vision is your skin? or what would you see your skin made of if it was not made of pure matter? what is matter anyways?

[Farnaby]

11 minutes ago, remember said:

@Farnaby  and where is outer and where is inner at the skin? where does skin separate from water or air or air and water separate from your skin? how can you know skin is more than your senses? would you say your vision is your skin? or what would you see your skin made of if it was not made of pure matter? what is matter anyways?

I think we actually don’t disagree.

What I believe is that the universe is made out of atoms. That includes my body and everything else. So the frontier between one (my body) and the other (everything else) may be an illusion. But even if inside-outside is an illusion, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some atoms relating to each other in some way and being perceived by my brain and senses, forming the image of let’s say a chair. 

What I mean is for me the chair exists, even if the form I perceive is an interpretation of my brain. 

[tsuki]

3 hours ago, Farnaby said:

What I don’t see is how everything doesn’t exist outside of my mind, as if there was no outside world, no other minds, nothing that exists beyond my mind.

Good.

What do you mean by 'exist'? Be as specific as you possibly can.
What do you understand when someone claims that other people "don't exist"?
Also, what do you understand when you hear the sentence 'your mind'?
What are the extents of your mind? Where does it start and where does it end?

These are not trick questions. I expect honest answers.

Edited September 4, 2019 by tsuki

[Leo Gura]

@Farnaby You're not doing the work. You're bullshitting yourself and wasting time.

[Farnaby]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

Good.

What do you mean by 'exist'? Be as specific as you possibly can.
What do you understand when someone claims that other people "don't exist"?
Also, what do you understand when you hear the sentence 'your mind'?
What are the extents of your mind? Where does it start and where does it end?

These are not trick questions. I expect honest answers.

By “exist” I mean that there is a physical reality to it. It’s present as matter in this Universe.

When someone claims people don’t exist I understand that he’s implying that I’m imagining everyone around me and that there’s no physical reality to that. As if my mind was making everything up. As I said this is a claim like a religious claim, it can’t be proven nor unproven. It’s like believing in unicorns, IMO. 

When I hear the sentence “my mind” I think of my subjectivity, my consciousness which is limited. I don’t know where it starts or ends, but I certainly don’t believe I’m imagining everything. If there weren’t atoms in the Universe, my brain wouldn’t be able to perceive anything.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Farnaby

[tsuki]

28 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

By “exist” I mean that there is a physical reality to it. It’s present as matter in this Universe.

Matter, as opposed to what? Is matter the absolute ground of existence?
Is matter not made of something? What is 'matter'? What is 'substance'?

28 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

When someone claims people don’t exist I understand that he’s implying that I’m imagining everyone around me and that there’s no physical reality to that. As if my mind was making everything up. As I said this is a claim like a religious claim, it can’t be proven nor unproven. It’s like believing in unicorns, IMO. 

What do you mean by 'proven'? Do you mean that in scientific terms?
When you are looking for absolute truth, can you prove anything with absolute certainty using the scientific method?
Is it absolutely proven that the sun will not go out tomorrow? Have you studied the scientific method and the extents of its applicability?

28 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

When I hear the sentence “my mind” I think of my subjectivity, my consciousness which is limited. I don’t know where it starts or ends, but I certainly don’t believe I’m imagining everything. If there weren’t atoms in the Universe, my brain wouldn’t be able to perceive anything.

What is the substance of your 'subjectivity'? Is your 'subjectivity' made of matter? Is anger made of atoms? What are thoughts made of? When you close your eyes and imagine something, what is that image made of? Does your subjective experience exist at all if it is not made of matter? What is experience?

Edited September 4, 2019 by tsuki

[Forestluv]

3 hours ago, Farnaby said:

As I said this is a claim like a religious claim, it can’t be proven nor unproven. It’s like believing in unicorns, IMO. 

A beautiful example of the pre/trans fallacy. From a rationalist point of view, post-rational is indistinguishable from irrational. So post-rational will be interpreted as irrational (such as a belief in unicorns). The person interpreting will not be aware of this. Transcending this is a major expansion of consciousness.

In terms of SD, the rationalist viewpoint would be stage Orange. Stage Orange will not be able to distinguish between Turquoise and Blue. Since Orange understands Blue, yet does not understand Turquoise, Orange will interpret post-rational Turquoise as irrational Blue.

As well, Orange is oriented toward "evidence" and "proof", yet will demand that "evidence/proof" be at an Orange level (for example, physical scientific evidence). This served as a useful tool when evolving from Blue to Orange, yet it is a block to evolving above Orange. In particular, Turquoise is fully transcendent of this contraction.

One key to understand is that language starts to break down in Tier 2. So at Turquoise, we often use words as "pointers". It is very common for Orange to focus on the words and take the words literally than to become aware of what is being pointed to. It is like someone pointing to the moon and the other person focuses on the arm and says "That's an arm!"

[Farnaby]

2 hours ago, tsuki said:

Matter, as opposed to what? Is matter the absolute ground of existence?
Is matter not made of something? What is 'matter'? What is 'substance'?

What do you mean by 'proven'? Do you mean that in scientific terms?
When you are looking for absolute truth, can you prove anything with absolute certainty using the scientific method?
Is it absolutely proven that the sun will not go out tomorrow? Have you studied the scientific method and the extents of its applicability?

What is the substance of your 'subjectivity'? Is your 'subjectivity' made of matter? Is anger made of atoms? What are thoughts made of? When you close your eyes and imagine something, what is that image made of? Does your subjective experience exist at all if it is not made of matter? What is experience?

Matter is made of particles. 

Yes, I have studied the scientific method. Well, the scientific method isn’t perfect and is indeed limited but it’s the most accurate we have, so in that sense it’s easier to believe what many scientific studies claim than other claims. If we shouldn’t believe scientists, then we could as well start believing anything we want (such as “the earth is flat”, magic exists, you can live off water exclusively, etc.).

What I’m asking for is quite straightforward: if it’s true that we are imagining everything, that would mean that we can somehow affect the outer world with our minds. If that was true, why has no one been able to prove things like levitation, telepathy, telekinesis, magic? 

[Farnaby]

19 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

As well, Orange is oriented toward "evidence" and "proof", yet will demand that "evidence/proof" be at an Orange level (for example, physical scientific evidence). This served as a useful tool when evolving from Blue to Orange, yet it is a block to evolving above Orange. In particular, Turquoise is fully transcendent of this contraction.

Well, if you make a certain claim about the nature of reality, you should provide proof. 

It’s funny how it’s always the same with these things:

1) People make a counter intuitive claim about the nature of reality.

2) When asked for proof, they can’t provide any and start blaming/making fun of/being condescendent towards the one asking for proof. 

3) Ultimately they start dismissing science as a whole and say their claims can’t be proven through that paradigm. 

But it’s OK, we’re free to believe anything we want.

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

Matter is made of particles. 

Yes, I have studied the scientific method. Well, the scientific method isn’t perfect and is indeed limited but it’s the most accurate we have, so in that sense it’s easier to believe what many scientific studies claim than other claims. If we shouldn’t believe scientists, then we could as well start believing anything we want (such as “the earth is flat”, magic exists, you can live off water exclusively, etc.).

Science has clearly shown that a particle can simultaneously be everywhere and nowhere. That was seen as irrational magic years ago. Like believing in unicorns. Yet know it is accepted in the scientific community.

6 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

What I’m asking for is quite straightforward: if it’s true that we are imagining everything, that would mean that we can somehow affect the outer world with our minds. 

We can. You are within a limited, contracted paradigm and cannot see this.

7 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

If that was true, why has no one been able to prove things like levitation, telepathy, telekinesis, magic? 

You are asking for "proof" within a particular paradigm. You are free to stay within that paradigm, or you can expand beyond it. Expanding beyond the scientific paradigm does not invalidate it. It is not a science vs. non-science argument. Science is within something more expansive.

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

Well, if you make a certain claim about the nature of reality, you should provide proof. 

It’s funny how it’s always the same with these things:

1) People make a counter intuitive claim about the nature of reality.

2) When asked for proof, they can’t provide any and start blaming/making fun of/being condescendent towards the one asking for proof. 

3) Ultimately they start dismissing science as a whole and say their claims can’t be proven through that paradigm. 

But it’s OK, we’re free to believe anything we want.

I understand how it is perceived that way. My career is in the sciences. I have spent 28 years of my life immersed in genetics, molecular, cellular biology and neuroscience - both scientific research and teaching. I have over a dozen publications in top level peer-reviewed scientific journals and I teach science at a University level. I don't dismiss science. This is not a question of science vs. non-science. It is about transcending the traditional scientific paradigm. This does not invalidate science. One becomes aware that traditional science is within something more expansive. Then the term "science" starts to break down and becomes inter-connected with all of reality.

I can tell that you are contracted within a traditional scientific paradigm, because I lived that paradigm for over 20 years. The key to transcending it for me is to know that it isn't about invalidating, dismissing, refuting and rejecting science - it is about transcending science. This is a very different orientation. If you frame this as rational science vs. irrational non-science - you will not reach more expansive transcendent levels.

[tsuki]

20 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

Yes, I have studied the scientific method. Well, the scientific method isn’t perfect and is indeed limited but it’s the most accurate we have, so in that sense it’s easier to believe what many scientific studies claim than other claims. If we shouldn’t believe scientists, then we could as well start believing anything we want (such as “the earth is flat”, magic exists, you can live off water exclusively, etc.).

You are misinterpreting my questions. I am not trying to debate you. I am asking you questions so that you can honestly reflect on them and see past your own limitations. I don't get off on humiliating people on online forums.

I was scientifically trained and I am not opposed to the scientific method. I am merely asking you whether you are aware of its applicability. Scientific method is the best tool for solving practical problems at collective level. Absolute truth is neither practical in this sense, nor is it verifiable at the collective level. You need to verify it for yourself and your skepticism is a solid foundation. The problem is that you are skeptical towards others instead of being skeptical of yourself. That is a distraction.

Actually, ancient skeptics were closer to the absolute truth than you are right now. Study them.

20 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

What I’m asking for is quite straightforward: if it’s true that we are imagining everything, that would mean that we can somehow affect the outer world with our minds. If that was true, why has no one been able to prove things like levitation, telepathy, telekinesis, magic? 

I'm going to say this again: you are misinterpreting Leo's teaching.
You are affecting reality with your mind, at the very least, by writing the responses and reading my replies.
How does your mind do that?

Edited September 4, 2019 by tsuki

[Farnaby]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

I understand how it is perceived that way. My career is in the sciences. I have spent 28 years of my life immersed in genetics, molecular, cellular biology and neuroscience - both scientific research and teaching. I have over a dozen publications in top level peer-reviewed scientific journals and I teach science at a University level. I don't dismiss science. This is not a question of science vs. non-science. It is about transcending the scientific paradigm. This does not invalidate science. One becomes aware that traditional science is within something more expansive. Then the term "science" starts to break down and becomes inter-connected with all of reality.

I can tell that you are contracted within a traditional scientific paradigm, because I lived that paradigm for over 20 years. The key to transcending it for me is to know that it isn't about invalidating, dismissing and refuting science - it is about transcending science. This is a very different orientation.

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve always had a pretty open mind and been a skeptic even in regards to scientific claims. Especially when it comes to things like psychology, feelings, health (i.e I think conventional medicine is too limited). 

What I have trouble with is believing something that no one has been able to prove. You say we can affect matter with our minds. Why can’t you show me some proof of this claim?