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

[zurew]

3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

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.

All Zen takes place under a set of presupposed metaphysical assumptions.

You never escape these philosophical debates - hence they are very far from being worthless.

The ability to become directly conscious of X already presupposes a frame that makes ' becoming directly conscious ' possible. And as long as there are multiple frames that are compatible with providing that possibility, you will have an underdetermination problem that you won't "solve" without doing philosophy and these seemingly worthless conceptual battles.

Edited August 30 by zurew

[yetineti]

26 minutes ago, zurew said:

The ability to become directly conscious of X already presupposes a frame that makes ' becoming directly conscious ' possible. And as long as there are multiple frames that are compatible with providing that possibility, you will have an underdetermination problem that you won't "solve" without doing philosophy and these seemingly worthless conceptual battles.

Ironically, the value of these ‘worthless conceptual battles’ is realizing they’re worthless.

Nobody here has described reality.

You can’t.

And trying should be offensive.

Edited August 30 by yetineti

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

All Zen takes place under a set of presupposed metaphysical assumptions.

You never escape these philosophical debates - hence they are very far from being worthless.

The ability to become directly conscious of X already presupposes a frame that makes ' becoming directly conscious ' possible. And as long as there are multiple frames that are compatible with providing that possibility, you will have an underdetermination problem that you won't "solve" without doing philosophy and these seemingly worthless conceptual battles.

What are they useful for beyond those things?

In the end, they're just guesses or conclusions, aren't they? They might be entertaining but they don't increase consciousness.

You can escape them. One important distinction to make here is between communication on the one hand, and what is not communication, such as the dissemination of a philosophical system. An enlightened person may attempt to convey such consciousness, which is very different from sharing opinions or expounding beliefs. Direct consciousness isn't a function of intellect or mind - not even of perception. It will be misunderstood, but it's worth a try.

[yetineti]

 

48 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

it's worth a try.

It’s a reminder to ourselves and others. In this sense, there is no ‘trying.’

Something is accomplished.

Trying involves expectations.

Doing does not.

Edited August 30 by yetineti

[UnbornTao]

@yetineti I just meant that when someone has an enlightenment experience, they may try to communicate the direct consciousness, but it will inevitably be misunderstood.

Edited August 30 by UnbornTao

[yetineti]

@UnbornTao 

Conversation isn’t for understanding, though. It is signaling. People should share their experiences, no?

 

 

 

Edited August 30 by yetineti

[UnbornTao]

On 8/30/2025 at 11:32 PM, yetineti said:

@UnbornTao 

Conversation isn’t for understanding, though. It is signaling. People should share their experiences, no?

I didn't say that. My point was related to "the absolute." What I meant is that a direct consciousness can't be accurately conveyed, or passed along like a ball. Among other things, language is ill-equipped for that task. Nor is the realization itself an experience. And so, we face our dilemma. This might be one reason why Zen has a reputation for being disconcerting or baffling.

You talk about sharing experiences, and that's fine.

Edited Tuesday at 11:53 AM by UnbornTao

[yetineti]

@UnbornTao

Realizations are not experiences?

[zurew]

9 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

What are they useful for beyond those things?

In the end, they're just guesses or conclusions, aren't they? They might be entertaining but they don't increase consciousness.

If your definition of usefulness is "something that increases consciousness" - then yeah they are useless, but I dont share that kind of definition (I use the term 'useful' in a much broader way). I also think thats a very reductive view of things and you miss a whole lot of nuance. Applying your approach to philosophy of science would be like saying that using the scientific process is as effective in finding out relative facts about the world as dancing around the fire 5 times , since they are all just "guesses".

 

The problem is this:  If you grant that there are truths that are in principle untestable and unfalsifiable, then you need to use an epistemic process which is not about testing or falsification. So the answer to your question of  "what are they useful for beyond those things?" - they are useful for finding out truths that cant be discerned in principle through falsification or  testing.

 

The relevant question that needs to be answered is this: Why should anyone think that having enlightenment/awakening experiences is only possible under one specific metaphysics? The reason why the answer to that question would be super relevant, is because as long as they are possible under multiple different kind of metaphysics , there will be an underdetermination issue and appealing to enlightenment to settle questions about metaphysics wont be sufficient.

For example  -  can you have the same enlightenment experience if solipsism is true just like the same way if Bernardo Kastrup's idealism is true? Because if the answer is yes, then obviously to settle which one is true cant be settled by merely appealing to enlightenment.

[UnbornTao]

9 hours ago, yetineti said:

@UnbornTao

Realizations are not experiences?

The kinds of realizations we're talking about here - no, they are not.

They could be called enlightenment experiences, although that's a misnomer.

Edited August 31 by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

@zurew Fuck Zen too, by the way. It falls into the same trap, and your response reflects that stuck-in-the-intellect pattern. This is why consciousness pursuits almost inevitably degrade into a belief system or religion in the end. The main point is that if we haven't had enlightenments yet, we don't really know what we're talking about, so it exists only as a placeholder in our minds. You want to "figure it out" by turning reality into a cosmology, a neat little package. When all is said and done, you find yourself in the very same place as before - not knowing what you and existence are -, only this time with more knowledge piled onto your "knowledge mountain" - guesses and conclusions, no matter how smart. But that is nothing. The matter is not relative. Relative to the possibility of direct consciousness, these discussions are worthless. And what other purpose is there other than increasing consciousness? This is the only way to access what's ultimately true about yourself and existence. Standing on a world of assumption undermines that possibility.

Generally speaking, we don't seem to grasp that Jesus didn't invent Christianity, or that Ramana didn't talk about Advaita Vedanta or nonduality. There's a crucial distinction to be made here: grasping the truth versus creating, adhering to, or spreading a belief system. The majority of people are followers engaged in the latter. Still, one can contemplate and personally get it for themselves.

Edited August 31 by UnbornTao

[zurew]

On 2025. 08. 30. at 0:28 AM, Carl-Richard said:

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.

Can you elaborate more on what you mean by meta-metaphysical? 

[zurew]

@UnbornTao I dont see how that engages with what I said. Whats the response to the issue about truths that are untestable and unfalsifiable in principle?

Whats the reponse to the issue about enlightenment,absolute truth being compatible with multiple different kind of metaphysical frameworks?

[Human Mint]

Don't underestimate the power of such discussions, if anything they will spark inspiration in spiritual seeking

[Ishanga]

4 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

Don't underestimate the power of such discussions, if anything they will spark inspiration in spiritual seeking

They should but they aren't imo, they are just promoting ideological identification, which only enhances something that is not Reality, hence leading someone further away from Truth!

Its this way on all forums, they lead to one having to defend their identities, not looking foolish or wrong in others eyes.. Don't make Spirituality a Study, its a personal journey, just find a method and mentor/guru and do it, its that simple, talking about it forever leads to the opposite of what it is all about!

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

@UnbornTao I dont see how that engages with what I said. Whats the response to the issue about truths that are untestable and unfalsifiable in principle?

Whats the reponse to the issue about enlightenment,absolute truth being compatible with multiple different kind of metaphysical frameworks?

What truths?

This is my point: pursuits like comparing philosophical systems or schools are purely intellectual and have nothing to do with genuine direct consciousness. They are speculation and are worthless.

Such questions stem from a fundamental misunderstanding: the attempt to intellectualize the absolute or force it into a conceptual framework. This approach works backwards from assumptions. It overlooks the fact that they are not a real assertion based on real consciousness in the matter.

It's like forcing a square peg into a round hole - the mind attempts to transform the absolute into a knowable form, but in doing so it degrades the reality and completely misses the point. Consider someone who has an authentic enlightenment experience, only for the mind to dilute it into familiar religious interpretations. The absolute can't be reduced to anything, and what you deal with afterwards is not the consciousness itself but a human interpretation imposed after the fact. In simple terms: it cannot be grasped by the mind in any way - though the mind will try regardless.

Anyway, reducing such matters to a mythical story or conclusion only serves to distract from any reality that might be true. Only direct consciousness makes a difference.

Probably not what you were looking for. In short: you must get it yourself, all the intellect in the world isn't going to make any difference at all in such matters.

Edited August 31 by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

@zurew The main issue here is that there is no reference point for understanding what direct consciousness is without having had one. You may tacitly believe that the only tools available for accessing the truth are the mind and perception.

Edited August 31 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

Conflating the absolute and the relative is not openmindedness, it's not proof of being awake. Don't let @Razard86 make you think otherwise.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

This is my point: pursuits like comparing philosophical systems or schools are purely intellectual and have nothing to do with genuine direct consciousness.

I didnt contest that. 

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

They are speculation and are worthless.

Sure under how you use 'worthless' and 'speculation' maybe, but again you didnt respond to any of the problems I raised, where philosophy and more specifically abductive reasoning shines.

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Such questions stem from a fundamental misunderstanding: the attempt to intellectualize the absolute or force it into a conceptual framework. This approach works backwards from assumptions. It overlooks the fact that they are not a real assertion based on real consciousness in the matter.

The point never was that one can access absolute truth through intellectual means, one point was that there are metaphysical questions that seemingly cant be answered just by the appeal to the absolute truth. For example "everything is mind" - that proposition is compatible with both solipsism and Kastrup's idealism, so in this specific case an appeal to absolute truth wouldnt be useful for finding out which metaphysical framework is true - which is why I labeled this as an underdetermination issue.

 

So the question is - what are you going to do about metaphysical questions that are in principle cant be answered by direct experience, falsification, testing? - you can ignore them and label them as "speculation" or anything you want, but those questions will still remain unanswered, and sure if you dont want to investigate those questions through other epistemic means (something other than direct consciousness), thats fine, but you grouping all those other epistemic approaches together under 'speculation' is still myopic and lacks nuance imo.

 

 

Edited August 31 by zurew

[Eskilon]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Conflating the absolute and the relative is not openmindedness, it's not proof of being awake. Don't let @Razard86 make you think otherwise.

Not defending Razard per se. But theres no conflation between the 2 so to speak. But at the same time there is conflation. It depends on perspective. That's why speaking about awakening is so misleading, its never what we talk.

You might come at me like "Dude, convey consistent stuff stop being a psychosis patient" well, yeah but truth is not clearcut. Again not defending him, just trying to understand.

Edited August 31 by Eskilon