Gesundheit

Solipsism Antidote

30 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I've literally got sick with the solipsism threads and posts spamming the forum every now and then.

I don't know how to put this other than to say that God has blessed me with the final answer for you, guys. So, I will share it with you here hoping that this will be a pill that will get you past this confusion once and for all.

Okay, ready?

So, the same way you've convinced yourself with the concept Direct Experience and how "important" or "true" it is, I would like to introduce you to another concept that I like to call Indirect Experience.

Indirect experience is not at all mysterious or hard to understand. It is simply the experience that you are not currently having, but rather thinking about. Thinking about something is an indirect experience of it. For example, you have directly experienced an ice-cream cone in the past. But now, as you're reading this, you're thinking about that experience. So, right now for you, the ice-cream cone is an indirect experience.

Now, apply this to other beings. Do you believe there are other sentient beings? Well, the answer doesn't really matter, because the question itself is framed wrong. A proper way of asking the question would be something like this: There seems to be other beings that seem independent of my perception of them. How can I know that they're real like me? And here's where understanding indirect experience is critical. Because you can actually have conversations with these beings and get a glimpse of their direct experiences by indirectly experiencing their experiences through imagination. So, when a person tells you about the most delicious plate, it's an indirect experience for you. And you can turn it into a direct experience by actually going and tasting that delicious plate they told you about. And then after that, you will have achieved direct experience of the plate, and you will be left with indirect experience, which is basically your thoughts about it.

Now, it's important to tackle the issue of truth here, because the concept direct experience claims to provide absolute truth, or at least a close relationship to it. So, where does indirect experience stand from truth? Well, the truth is that what other people say can be either true or false. So, it's not really a problem of what indirect experience can yield, because it can yield anything, it's more about how it's understood and applied. In other words, indirect experience is neither true or false by itself alone. It requires your validation for it to be true. For example, if someone says that the moon is green, you go look outside and see if it's green for you. That'll determine whether the direct experience claimed by the other person is true for you or not. If you look at the moon and don't find it green, you'll know that your direct experience is different from what they're saying. You won't necessarily have to prove or disprove their claims. You can live knowing that everyone perceives the world differently, and that some people don't tell the truth about their direct experience from time to time.

If you're going to be smart and tell me that indirect experience is the same thing as imagination, well, you're right. They're the same thing, and that's precisely the point, because when you say imagination as opposed to "direct experience", it seems to you as if they're two different things. But what you don't realize is that reality is infinite imagination, as Leo puts it. Just get this idea out of your head that there is somehow a distinction between actuality and imagination, because they're literally the same thing. If you haven't yet realized that reality is infinite imagination, notice that direct experience = indirect experience. So, by definition, all experience = imagination.

That being said, I hope that I will never have to read another solip-fucking-sistic post for the remainder of my life. Thanks.

Edited by Gesundheit

If you have no confidence in yourself, you are twice defeated in the race of life. But with confidence you have won, even before you start.” -- Marcus Garvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is gonna be an interesting 5-day debate.


It's just a ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Consciousness itself, at the “deepest” level, is always alone. It simply cannot experience anything but itself. This doesn’t mean that others aren’t conscious necessarily. It just means that if you had a direct experience of “another” consciousness it would still just be one field of consciousness/experience which is what you are. 
 

This is all coming from someone with many experiences of being connected to other beings/minds/souls. Even directly interfacing with what indirectly appears to be another consciousness/conscious entity, it doesn’t really change what you are. 
 

Ultimately the ego self that could even think of itself as being alone in some way is just as much indirect or direct experience as the indirect or direct experience of thinking another consciousness is somewhere else. 
 

From the Relative perspective, it makes all the difference to understand this. From the Absolute perspective, it makes no difference to understand this. Regardless, the Relative and Absolute perspectives are always in a strange loop-ish dance with themselves. 

Edited by BipolarGrowth

You mistake my Raja Yoga. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

lol I've never seen this subject come up anywhere spirituality is discussed as much as it has here. If you are struggling with solipsism thoughts you need to quiet your mind and leave your house/computer and get out into nature and get more social. 

Edited by Lyubov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gesundheit While Solipsism is true I agree with you that it’s not the Absolute Truth like most on this forum claim. 

There are in fact ways to disprove its Absolute-ness but this forum is too close-minded for me to share that. The method has nothing to do with meditation or psychedelics and so, it’s just unverifiable story-telling to everyone here. And so, it’s of no value for me to share. 

So why bring it up in the first place? Well because my point is that I agree with you that there’s a way to disprove it although your indirect experience method isn’t quite it. So that’s the area where we may disagree. 
 

Anyways, this forum’s not gonna receive what you just said very well. Your contemplation here will be called “mental masturbation” so I personally think you’re wasting your time here with this forum. Your pearls won’t have any value here so cast them somewhere in which they will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deeper problem whether others are real or its just me imo is why I am this particular human body? Why I experiencing reality through this particular avatar at this particular moment? 


I live my life in a dream; the constant threat of a rude awakening keeps me on my toes.
-Mettley Zimmer

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Someone here said:

The deeper problem whether others are real or its just me imo is why I am this particular human body? Why I experiencing reality through this particular avatar at this particular moment? 

why do you need a reason? tap into the infinite love and beauty around you and the stillness of the present moment. too much thinking about questions that can't definitively be answered with mind cuts one off from this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Someone here said:

The deeper problem whether others are real or its just me imo is why I am this particular human body? Why I experiencing reality through this particular avatar at this particular moment? 

Notice that the you that is asking the question is not the same you that will receive the answer. So, what does it matter?


If you have no confidence in yourself, you are twice defeated in the race of life. But with confidence you have won, even before you start.” -- Marcus Garvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Leo should make a video about Solipsism and whenever somebody starts a topic about t, we point them to the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I have to do it, at this point it's almost tradition: 

tenor2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tim R said:

I'm sorry but I have to do it, at this point it's almost tradition: 

tenor2.gif

Follow the damn thread CJ!


It's just a ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confusing non-duality (the Self is the only thing that exists) with classical solipsism (the small self is the only thing that exists) is literally just the relative/absolute fallacy.

Non-duality says the Self is the only thing that exists — the small self doesn't exist. There are no people, including yourself. End of story.


To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I speculate there might be some psychological factors behind the scenes of a lot of this talk. The question of solipsisms hits a few different facets to perception and personality. It hits on matters of empathy, morality and goodness. These are deep things

I would refer to "The Essential Difference" by Simon Cohen, I've uploaded just my notes from chapter 1 of it to here. I might upload more later when I continue reading. 

If someones natural brain type is to heavily "empathise" [vague term you can look up or read around for more nuance, I talked a bit about it in my journal], or they have whatever X biology/psychology, they will formulate non-duality differently and will have a different process, different formulations and differently framed humps to overcome.


I don't see a rational resolution from talking and debating. I know I won't get a resolution from that. I mention the psychological factor not at all to invalidate the question and say "hurr durr men are just autistic", but to try and give a little persuasion to people to realise the question won't be solved by lots of thinking from the same place.

Edited by lmfao

Hark ye yet again — the little lower layer. All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event — in the living act, the undoubted deed — there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me. Sometimes I think there's naught beyond. But 'tis enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Confusing non-duality (the Self is the only thing that exists) with classical solipsism (the small self is the only thing that exists) is literally just the relative/absolute fallacy.

Non-duality says the Self is the only thing that exists — the small self doesn't exist. There are no people, including yourself. End of story.

Exactly.  Its just one infinite Mind imagining shit.  That's it.  All divisions are imagined by this Mind.


 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

21 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Exactly.  Its just one infinite Mind imagining shit.  That's it.  All divisons are imagined by this Mind.

The problem with solipsism isn't that it's narcissistic; it's that it's not narcissistic enough. If the solipsist dared to collapse all distinctions and claim it all as himself, then he would go full circle and realize that there is no longer a self to be narcissistic about ??

Edited by Carl-Richard

To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about free will? :D


Consiousness is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BipolarGrowth said:

Consciousness itself, at the “deepest” level, is always alone. It simply cannot experience anything but itself. This doesn’t mean that others aren’t conscious necessarily. It just means that if you had a direct experience of “another” consciousness it would still just be one field of consciousness/experience which is what you are.

The mistake here is defining ultimate reality through consciousness as if consciousness is ultimate reality. It simply is not. Reality is not infinite consciousness. Reality is an infinite nothingness that is capable of imagining consciousness. Consciousness is just a tiny portion of infinity. Consciousness is actually not very different from thought, it's just a different manifestation/form of thoughts. Are you conscious of thoughts? Or are you thinking about consciousness? There's no difference. All of it is imagination couched within nothingness. So, you're left with not-knowing anything outside of imagination. And that's pretty much expected because, by definition, you know-not nothing.


If you have no confidence in yourself, you are twice defeated in the race of life. But with confidence you have won, even before you start.” -- Marcus Garvey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gesundheit Regardless, this is essentially an inescapable mechanic of consciousness. What I’ve said above is what I have so far been able to verify through both contemplation and experience. The solipsism question is generally framed around the potential consciousness of “others” which is why I included it so much in my response. 

 

Do you care to explain your methods for arriving at this particular nothingness conclusion? I’ve had realizations of nothingness, but they all occurred within consciousness. I’m a bit skeptical of how you can know, in an epistemically solid way, that there is something other than consciousness when you would have to use consciousness (in my current understanding at least) to arrive at this conclusion, but I’m open to learn if you’re interested in showing me the way. Feel free to shoot me a PM about this or simply reply here. 


You mistake my Raja Yoga. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now