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

[SOUL]

Did someone say fighting absolute solipsism?

[Sugarcoat]

16 hours ago, Razard86 said:

That means you are close. If you take the drugs enough times with the intent to break through eventually YOU WILL. It all depends on how badly do you want to break through. I've had a couple trips to the psyche ward because of this work as I truly lost my sanity, and then eventually it normalized and recontextualized itself and it placed me in heaven.

Now even after that I am aiming to deepen the connection even more because...why not? For me I used mushrooms one time and then the rest were hero dose edibles. I'm naturally blessed that when I take edibles I retain about 75 percent of the high months after taking it. It was through edibles that I became aware of Nothingness and once I became aware of that I laughed at every forum member that ever argued against Solipsism because I became completely aware that I was every human being. That means I exist everywhere as nothingness, this means I exist in all dimensions that can be imagined. 

I realized that if anyone argues against Solipsism they still unconsciously think they are human. It's as simple as that. This means Rupert Spira is not really awake and Bernado Kastrup is not really awake which is disappointing because I respect them deeply and they all helped in some way on my journey. 

Understand that if someone has not realized that Infinity is ALL ONE= Alone in its infinitude they are asleep and are trying to keep you asleep unconsciously. 

Maybe when some speak of solipsism they speak in terms of the personal consciousness being the only one, so it has different meaning than what you said

 

[Eskilon]

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm not very interested if you can justify solipsism. I'm interested if you can make it seem better than other alternatives.

If Solipsism is true, there's no other alternatives.

[Yeah Yeah]

Did you know in the 1940s 10s of thousands of women were labotamized simply because they felt sad in their marriage and the man thought she wasn't normal as in happy and socially acceptable and so he'd team up with a dr to then lock her up and force a stick in her brain and swoosh that matter into a soup and the kids would have to get used their new mum like how absolutely fucked is that ... I wouldn't be surprised in my last life I was a labotamized woman and I carry this trauma i to this life to resolve 

Edited August 25 by Yeah Yeah

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Eskilon said:

If Solipsism is true, there's no other alternatives.

Lol. "Proving solipsism" in any absolute sense is another naive fantasy. Outside the absolute (which depending on the person explaining it, "Absolute Solipsism" ironically is not), you can only provide justification. And then it's up to how you evaluate those justifications. And that lays the basis for comparing different justifications. For example, if you spend 5 paragraphs saying something you can say in one, or you're able to explain more things with less, that could be one criteria.

Edited August 25 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

@Carl-Richard if you take @Leo Gura's logical proof of Oneness and then apply it to Consciousness  - I don't recall him getting into reality or God being Consciousness..but if reality is Consciousness..then you can actually come to this via a logical proof.

 

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Carl-Richard if you take @Leo Gura's logical proof of Oneness and then apply it to Consciousness  - I don't recall him getting into reality or God being Consciousness..but if reality is Consciousness..then you can actually come to this via a logical proof.

You can also "prove" the Earth is flat.

Edited August 25 by Carl-Richard

[Yeah Yeah]

Are we sure consciousness isn't like more beyond what we think of as consciousness but our human label is limited, like different forms, dimensions and species of consciousness, do you get what I'm saying? Even with awareness what if there are infinite different physics or universes or different realms aside from awareness ...

Edited August 25 by Yeah Yeah

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

You can also prove the Earth is flat.

Haha..i could tell you anything but would it be a process of logical deduction? Anyway..Well proof when it comes to God is more for entertainment purposes. The real proof is in the pudding 🍮  aka awakening.

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Haha..i could tell you anything but would it be a process of logical deduction?

When I look around, I only see flat, therefore the Earth is flat. Q.E.D.

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

When I look around, I only see flat, therefore the Earth is flat. Q.E.D.

Actually you just see what's in front of you or behind.  If I stand on a hill I wouldn't see flat.  You don't even see an earth.   

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Actually you just see what's in front of you or behind.  If I stand on a hill I wouldn't see flat.  You don't even see an earth.   

Only what I see is real. Literal checkmate.

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Only what I see is real. Literal checkmate.

You're missing the point.  

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

You're missing the point.  

No, you are. The point is the logical deduction, justification, relies on assumptions, and these must be evaluated.

Edited August 25 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

No, you are. The point is the logical deduction, justification, relies on assumptions, and these must be evaluated.

What i was saying is that take Leo's logical proofs of God.  His video prior to that was about past philosophers and their proofs of God.   But none of them had actually awoken.  He gave his proofs and honestly they were spot on and can actually lead to awakening but were not meant to actually prove God. It's just that the logic, if you pay attention to it with an open mind, actually POINTS there.   It points to it but it isn't it nor can it take you there.  So proof is very limited. 

When you say that you can logically point to the earth being flat and you tell me when I look around and see it's flat then that logically proves the earth is flat,  that doesn't really point to that logically at all.  So you're making a mockery of it.

Edited August 25 by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

When you say that you can logically point to the earth being flat and you tell me when I look around and see it's flat then that logically proves the earth is flat,  that doesn't really point to that logically at all.  So you're making a mockery of it.

"X, therefore y", is logic. Nothing special about it. Leo's logic also relies on assumptions. There is literally zero difference. It's just that you want to challenge the assumptions in one case but not the other.

Edited August 25 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

"X, therefore y", is logic. Nothing special about it. Leo's logic also relies on assumptions. There is literally zero difference. It's just that you want to challenge the assumptions in one case but not the other.

Well that's true. But it means you should entertain all possibilities until you discover whats true. Yes I noticed some holes in his proofs..like you pointed out.  But he admits that beforehand.   It also means by your own logic that solipsism shouldn't be dismissed either.

[James123]

@Inliytened1 @Carl-Richard just be witness till witness and witnessed dissolves or dissapears.

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, James123 said:

@Inliytened1 @Carl-Richard just be witness till witness and witnessed dissolves or dissapears.

Been there done that. 

Edited August 26 by Inliytened1

[James123]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Been there done that. 

Great.