Razard86

Many People Who Are Fighting Absolute Solipsism Do Not Even Know What It Is

806 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

But is it not entertaining?!

But it's true. If you are able to admit that it's a conceptual framework based on logic and not Absolute truth, then solipsism, but in fact any metaphysics, is actually unfalsifiable. So in order to evaluate which is best, you need to use certain meta-metaphysical criteria, e.g. elegance, explanatory power. But I'm actually cheating because I haven't argued a specific metaphysical position yet (e.g. idealism). My position has been more meta-metaphysical: treating appearances as one thing, treating inferences based on appearances (e.g. an "external world") as another; both can be said to have a kind of reality to them, but I haven't placed any of them as ontologically more primary than the other.

But if I were to compare solipsism to say objective idealism (it assumes an external world), and while putting the much more problematic Absolute vs relative conflation that is going on here aside, I think objective idealism is still more elegant. There is something about the linguistic hoops you have to jump through to circumvent assuming an external world that is not elegant. Instead of saying "when I go around my block and I get back to my door, the door is in the same place because it was always there", you say "you simply feel very strongly as if the door was always there, but instead, the actual reality is you only produce every appearance ad hoc with no actual external world grounding it, and the fact that the door seems to act as if it was always there in an external world, is just a funky coincidence".

Edited by Carl-Richard

Intrinsic joy = being x meaning ²

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

But it's true. If you are able to admit that it's a conceptual framework based on logic and not Absolute truth, then solipsism, but in fact any metaphysics, is actually unfalsifiable. So in order to evaluate which is best, you need to use certain meta-metaphysical criteria, e.g. elegance, explanatory power. But I'm actually cheating because I haven't argued a specific metaphysical position yet (e.g. idealism). My position has been more meta-metaphysical: treating appearances as one thing, treating inferences based on appearances (e.g. an "external world") as another; both can be said to have a kind of reality to them, but I haven't placed any of them as ontologically more primary than the other.

But if I were to compare solipsism to say objective idealism (it assumes an external world), and while putting the much more problematic Absolute vs relative conflation that is going on here aside, I think objective idealism is still more elegant. There is something about the linguistic hoops you have to jump through to circumvent assuming an external world that is not elegant. Instead of saying "when I go around my block and I get back to my door, the door is in the same place because it was always there", you say "you simply feel very strongly as if the door was always there, but instead, the actual reality is you only produce every appearance ad hoc with no actual external world grounding it, and the fact that the door seems to act as if it was always there in an external world, is just a funky coincidence".

Again logic should be used as a pointer but spiritual practices should be used to determine what is true.  Logic - not elegance.   I do wonder how you can have idealism with an external world.  A dream is a dream.   What would be the point of having more than the current frame exist. 

Edited by Inliytened1

 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

Again logic should be used a pointer but spiritual practices should be used to determine what is true.

I will wait for the answer of the most awake person ever 👍

 

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

Logic - not elegance.

If a pointer is logically sound but it uses 500 words to say something you can say in 50 without losing any substance, is it a good pointer?

 

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

I do wonder how you can have idealism with an external world.  A dream is a dream.

Simple: the internal is personal, the external is transpersonal. The dreamer is transpersonal, the dream character is personal.

 

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

What would be the point of having more than the current frame exist. 

The point is that it explains more, it's more elegant.

Edited by Carl-Richard

Intrinsic joy = being x meaning ²

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

33 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I will wait for the answer of the most awake person ever 👍

That would be missing the point.

33 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

If a pointer is logically sound but it uses 500 words to say something you can say in 50 without losing any substance, is it a good pointer?

 

I would day its still a pointer and its still logic

 

33 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Simple: the internal is personal, the external is transpersonal. The dreamer is transpersonal, the dream character is personal.

Idealism says it's all mind. Mind can't be fragmented it's one.  There isn't a piece of mind out there outside your door and another piece.of mind where you are looking.  Where would the physical divider lie?  There is no physicalism.

Edited by Inliytened1

 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No one will be able to explain any of this.

No one has control.

There is no God.

There is no Godhead.

There is no mind.

No consciousness.

No words.

No nothing.

 

Edited by yetineti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, yetineti said:

No one will be able to explain any of this.

No one has control.

There is no God.

There is no Godhead.

There is no mind.

No consciousness.

No words.

No nothing.

 

What is no one and nothing?


 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Inliytened1

No one and nothing.

Edit:

no one; no person; not a single person.

nothing; not anything; no single thing.

Edited by yetineti

Share this post


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

@Inliytened1

No one and nothing.

Infinity. 


 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Inliytened1

If everything takes place within infinity, and infinity takes place within itself— it is limited to itself, resulting in a paradoxically finite nature. 

Infinity implies too much.

Reality isn’t actually infinite or finite.

Notice how if you recognize reality’s endlessness it immediately limits itself to that.

 

Edited by yetineti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Solipsism is a human idea.

Infinity is a human idea.

God is a human idea.

And much more.

All human explanations are falsehoods.

Individual statements can be true.

Explanations cannot; they can lead and are purely referential.

 

 

 

 

Edited by yetineti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

I would day its still a pointer and its still logic.

That would be missing the point.

 

11 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Idealism says it's all mind. Mind can't be fragmented it's one.  There isn't a piece of mind out there outside your door and another piece.of mind where you are looking.  Where would the physical divider lie?  There is no physicalism.

That's the absolute perspective. But you can take the absolute as a starting point and then derive relative phenomena and explain them (in the realm of logic). That's what the dream analogy does after all. The dreamer is absolute, the dream character (and characters) is relative.

And therefore, objective idealism as a logical theory is also a great pointer to the absolute. If you identify as the dream character but somebody tells you "you are the dreamer", that can be very helpful.

Edited by Carl-Richard

Intrinsic joy = being x meaning ²

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

That would be missing the point.

 

That's the absolute perspective. But you can take the absolute as a starting point and then derive relative phenomena and explain them (in the realm of logic). That's what the dream analogy does after all. The dreamer is absolute, the dream character (and characters) is relative.

And therefore, objective idealism as a logical theory is also a great pointer to the absolute. If you identify as the dream character but somebody tells you "you are the dreamer", that can be very helpful.

Oh man this is good stuff.  This is where Leo's proofs would have really shined.  Objective idealism begins to break down if you really apply logic to it.  Hegel and Plato didn't think that deeply.   The thing they missed is that the self doesn't exist either so subjective idealism also doesn't exist. Its not really self/other.  It just is.  So it is idealism.   Subject/ object is a duality. 

Edited by Inliytened1

 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

I see the Solpsism debate is still stronger than ever. Kinda of ironic given the subject 🤔

Since the Universe favors Self Exploration of course it would resist Solipsism, to the selfish individual Solipsism removes all blame and victimhood. Selfishness defines itself by victimhood so it cannot allow itself to realize it is dreaming everything in the eternal now. Otherwise it can only point the finger at itself and if it does that....it will have no where to go. Combine that with the fact it probably doesn't even believe it deserves the title of God.


You are a selfless LACK OF APPEARANCE, that CONSTRUCTS AN APPEARANCE. But that appearance can disappear and reappear and we call that change, we call it time, we call it space, we call it distance, we call distinctness, we call it other. But notice...this appearance, is a SELF. A SELF IS A CONSTRUCTION!!! 

So if you want to know the TRUTH OF THE CONSTRUCTION. Just deconstruct the construction!!!! No point in playing these mind games!!! No point in creating needless complexity!!! The truth of what you are is a BLANK!!!! A selfless awareness....then that means there is NO OTHER, and everything you have ever perceived was JUST AN APPEARANCE, A MIRAGE, AN ILLUSION, IMAGINARY. 

Everything that appears....appears out of a lack of appearance/void/no-thing, non-sense (can't be sensed because there is nothing to sense). That is what you are, and what arises...is made of that. So nonexistence, arises/creates existence. And thus everything is solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

Since the Universe favors Self Exploration of course it would resist Solipsism, to the selfish individual Solipsism removes all blame and victimhood. Selfishness defines itself by victimhood so it cannot allow itself to realize it is dreaming everything in the eternal now. Otherwise it can only point the finger at itself and if it does that....it will have no where to go. Combine that with the fact it probably doesn't even believe it deserves the title of God.

Precisely.   However it is a very slippery slope because you and I walk fearlessly and open minded into the dark night but this does not mean that the majority do.  For them we must take care to frame things properly and make things seem elegant.  Solipsism isn't elegant in that to me the word implies a self.  So shall we use Absolute Solpsism as the philosophical worldview? I would actually encourage the abandonment of the term altogether.  Idealism fits nicely here because it indicates that reality is mind. What it doesn't do is specify Oneness. How to incorporate all of reality into a single term is near impossible.   So using terms at all for most people will only add to the confusion.  Hence I stress the spiritual practices.  Keep an open mind and do the work. Then you'll find what is true and it won't be found in a philosophy class.  

Edited by Inliytened1

 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I would actually encourage the abandonment of the term altogether.  Idealism fits nicely here because it indicates that reality is mind.

'i" can not imagine the abandonment of all the terms or mind. 😊 

Love you my brother.


"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, James123 said:

'i" can not imagine the abandonment of all the terms or mind. 😊 

Love you my brother.

Love you too.  Yes. The use of language at all innately incorporates duality.  I..you..me...Self..other.  it is a losing game. Sit and stare at your hand for hours.  All of this isnt needed.  But at the same time a logical framework IS needed as a pointer to then do the work.  If you woke up one day and I told you to stare at your hand your mind would have no spiritual traction or any ground.   The concepts set the backdrop.  At least it did for me. Perhaps they aren't needed for some.

Edited by Inliytened1

 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Love you too.  Yes. The use of language at all innately incorporates duality.  I..you..me...Self..other.  it is a losing game. Sit and stare at your hand for hours.  All of this isnt needed.  But at the same time a logical framework IS needed as a pointer to then do the work.  If you woke up one day and I told you to stare at your hand your mind would have no spiritual traction or any ground.   The concepts set the backdrop.  At least it did for me. Perhaps they aren't needed for some.

Imo, logical framework or mind is needed to surrendering or putting entire Trust in Truth, God or Allah.

And rest is surrendering that mind. And just let It take over.


"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, James123 said:

Imo, logical framework or mind is needed to surrendering or putting entire Trust in Truth, God or Allah.

And rest is surrendering that mind. And just let It take over.

And what remains.  What takes over. What is Truth.


 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Carl-Richard The philosophical interchanges can be entertaining and mentally stimulating. At best, they might present a good intellectual argument, but all the intellect in the world won't make any difference at all in these matters. In the end these kinds of things are just guesses or conclusions or possibilities. They are not a real assertion based on real consciousness in the matter. Such pursuits are only intellectual and have nothing to do with genuine direct consciousness in such matters. They're worthless, really.

My attempt was more about sorting out what's what in one's experience and pointing out that states and drugs are not direct consciousness. To me, it's clear the OP is conflating phenomena and mind states with any breakthrough that might have been achieved. His descriptions are full of "this" and "that" which are relative considerations, such as a process in time, "losing" the experience, "coming back" from the state, and so on and so forth. A breakthrough doesn't come with all this baggage.

Edited by UnbornTao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

And what remains.  What takes over. What is Truth.

Exactly. 💯 


"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."

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