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

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, James123 said:

Great. 

Have you seen F1 with Brad Pitt yet?

[James123]

Just now, Inliytened1 said:

Have you seen F1 with Brad Pitt yet?

No. İs it good?

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, James123 said:

No. İs it good?

There is a scene where he says that he once reached a state of consciousness (I'm paraphrasing) in which he was just "flying" .  Meaning he was just there..in another state.  And nothing could touch him and no one could beat him. He would just float around the track effortlessly. Without mind.  And he would give anything to be in that state again.  But the problem is no matter how much he wanted to he couldn't force it or chase it. It just had to happen.

Edited August 26 by Inliytened1

[James123]

3 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

There is a scene where he says that he once reached a state of consciousness (I'm paraphrasing) in which he was just "flying" .  Meaning he was just there..in another state.  And nothing could touch him and no one could beat him. He would just float around the track effortlessly.  And he would give anything to be in that state again.  But the problem is no matter how much he wanted to he couldn't force it or chase it. It just had to happen.

Definitely. Chasing = getting far.

watching the chaser=done.

He should replay the fight club again 😊 

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, James123 said:

Definitely. Chasing = getting far.

watching the chaser=done.

He should replay the fight club again 😊 

Lol 😆 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

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.

In the realm of logic, I take what is most elegant while explaining the most things. If you show solipsism to be that, I will speak favorly of solipsism. The problem is most people who try to do that (if they even are trying), don't. And 50% of the time, they contradict each other, so there is that as well, which makes the entire pursuit unserious.

Any solipsism involving videogame analogies is unserious to me (not because videogames are unserious, but because "only 1st person limited appearances are real" is unserious). Any solipsism that equates it to the Absolute and which leaves the realm of logic open to whatever you may find most favorable (because the Absolute is ultimately beyond that), then I favor that solipsism. But I still find the word "solipsism" to describe that as an absolute Nobel Prize in communicative blunders, because of the cultural confusion around the word which is the very basis for why 50% of the time, people contradict each other.

Edited August 26 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

Here is why videogame solipsism is unserious. You will speak about "appearances", you will describe them very vividly, with concepts, labels, forms, and you put this as the absolute truth, because, why? It makes ZERO sense. You're already way beyond absolute truth. Once you start speaking about appearances, colors, sounds, flowers, bikes, cars, you might as well start talking about inferences you can make with those things (e.g. an external world), because you already poisoned the holy water.

Edited August 26 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

In the realm of logic, I take what is most elegant while explaining the most things. If you show solipsism to be that, I will speak favorly of solipsism.

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

In the realm of logic, I take what is most elegant while explaining the most things. If you show solipsism to be that, I will speak favorly of solipsism.

Showing bias when it comes to Truth is probably the biggest trap there is.  You should want to know what is true not what is elegant.  Solpsism is surely not elegant.  But if God strove to be only Brad Pitt we would surely be screwed.   

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Showing bias when it comes to Truth is probably the biggest trap there is.  You should want to know what is true not what is elegant.  Solpsism is surely not elegant.  But if God strove to be only Brad Pitt we would surely be screwed.   

Logic is not Absolute truth. Logic deals with Maya.

Edited August 26 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Logic is not Absolute truth. Logic deals with Maya.

But didn't logic explain what Absolute truth is to you? What you know now of Absolute Truth must be logically or conceptually deduced.  I'm not saying you haven't awakened.  I'm saying that right now your notions of Absolute truth are no more Absolute then Solpsism. 

[Carl-Richard]

13 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

But didn't logic explain what Absolute truth is to you? What you know now of Absolute Truth must be logically or conceptually deduced.  I'm not saying you haven't awakened.  I'm saying that right now your notions of Absolute truth are no more Absolute then Solpsism. 

And? The absolute doesn't hinge on logic. Solipsism (videogame version) hinges on inelegant logic. If you want to give me a logical account of reality, do it well: don't assume unnecessary entities, don't equivocate, don't make an unnecessary mess.

Edited August 26 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

And? The absolute doesn't hinge on logic. Solipsism (videogame version) hinges on inelegant logic. If you want to give me a logical account of reality, do it well: don't assume unnecessary entities, don't equivocate, don't make an unnecessary mess.

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

And? The absolute doesn't hinge on logic. Solipsism hinges on unelegant logic. If you want to give me a logical account of reality, do it well: don't assume unnecessary entities, don't equivocate, don't make an unnecessary mess.

It's funny.  We are playing this game and yet I know you. I have watched you over the years. And you are the very best at discerning the Absolute vs the relative.  And you know that the Absolute is literally no self and no other.   So why is Solipsism something different then that? Because no self or other is impersonal?  Is Absolute Mind or God impersonal? You bet it is.  But it's also extremely paradoxical and personal.   It is sentient. And it is omniscient.  And it can love.  The problem God has is it just realizes it is absolutely alone.  All other collapses into God. You.  And you are left- sentient - alone.  But that's OK.  Because tomorrow you will dream again 

 

Edited August 26 by Inliytened1

[Razard86]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

It's funny.  We are playing this game and yet I know you. I have watched you over the years. And you are the very best at discerning the Absolute vs the relative.  And you know that the Absolute is literally no self and no other.   So why is Solipsism something different then that? Because no self or other is impersonal?  Is Absolute Mind or God impersonal? You bet it is.  But it's also extremely paradoxical and personal.   It is sentient. And it is omniscient.  And it can love.  The problem God has is it just realizes it is absolutely alone.  All other collapses into God. You.  And you are left- sentient - alone.  But that's OK.  Because tomorrow you will dream again 

 

The only issue is Nothingness hasn't been grasped. Once one becomes aware of Nothingness the realization that all division/separation never existed. It's just somethingness which is nothingness's appearance of itself putting on a show for itself. What's even funnier is the Absolute and the relative are so inextricably linked that even creating a division between them is not even correct as well.

For example Leo said sense organs are imaginary, yes this is true. Leo said your visual field doesn't exist because photons aren't hitting the lens of your eyes etc. and to check your direct experience. Here is the irony....the reason you do not experience photons hitting your eyes is because you as God has chosen to imagine it that way so that is the case. But let's say you as God were to speed up your perception and to reveal the Science of how your body works and how the process of sight is utilized by the body you could show the very process in your direct experience that Science already discovered through their research. 

So BOTH is true. God imagines human perception as limited so it cannot see the photons of light hitting the lens of the eyes which allows sight to happen. But just because God has imagined it this way, does not negate what Science has discovered when it comes to how the eyes work and their relationship to the brain. With that said...in the absolute sense eyes are not needed for sight, but in the relative domain as long as you are walking around in this human body you will need eyes to see (unless of course you open your third eye and unlock inner sight but that is whole other route of experience). 

[Inliytened1]

15 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

The only issue is Nothingness hasn't been grasped. Once one becomes aware of Nothingness the realization that all division/separation never existed. It's just somethingness which is nothingness's appearance of itself putting on a show for itself. What's even funnier is the Absolute and the relative are so inextricably linked that even creating a division between them is not even correct as well.

For example Leo said sense organs are imaginary, yes this is true. Leo said your visual field doesn't exist because photons aren't hitting the lens of your eyes etc. and to check your direct experience. Here is the irony....the reason you do not experience photons hitting your eyes is because you as God has chosen to imagine it that way so that is the case. But let's say you as God were to speed up your perception and to reveal the Science of how your body works and how the process of sight is utilized by the body you could show the very process in your direct experience that Science already discovered through their research. 

So BOTH is true. God imagines human perception as limited so it cannot see the photons of light hitting the lens of the eyes which allows sight to happen. But just because God has imagined it this way, does not negate what Science has discovered when it comes to how the eyes work and their relationship to the brain. With that said...in the absolute sense eyes are not needed for sight, but in the relative domain as long as you are walking around in this human body you will need eyes to see (unless of course you open your third eye and unlock inner sight but that is whole other route of experience). 

Nothingness was a very profound realization. Very profound.  It shook me to.my core as did Infinity. But Oneness as God.  This. This is the most profound. And this is Solpsism in the sense that you do realize all other is part of your own mind. All other is your mind as God. To be frank had I not been already dead I wouldn't know how to move on from this. And in fact when the ego returned it took many months.  The realization that all other was in my mind can never be shaken off.

Edited August 26 by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

52 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

The only issue is Nothingness hasn't been grasped. Once one becomes aware of Nothingness the realization that all division/separation never existed. It's just somethingness which is nothingness's appearance of itself putting on a show for itself. What's even funnier is the Absolute and the relative are so inextricably linked that even creating a division between them is not even correct as well.

If nothingness had been realized, you wouldn't have tried to claim that some very particular somethingness is implied by the Absolute.

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If nothingness had been realized, you wouldn't have tried to claim that some very particular somethingness is implied by the Absolute.

Pretty sure @Razard86 is enlightened as fuck.  One of the few here.  And i can count them on one hand.

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Pretty sure @Razard86 is enlightened as fuck.  One of the few here.  And i can count them on one hand.

1. The guy is awakened, not enlightened (according to my enlightenment radar; if you disagree, you're obviously wrong). 2. I don't give a fuck. This is a problem about logic. You can be absolutely psychotic and enlightened at the same time. And it was said tongue in cheek, mirroring his condescending remark, except I made it direct instead of making it indirect, which is another brilliant tactic.

Edited August 26 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

1. The guy is awakened, not enlightened (according to my enlightenment radar; if you disagree, you're obviously wrong). 2. I don't give a fuck. This is a problem about logic. You can be absolutely psychotic and enlightened at the same time. And it was said tongue in cheek, mirroring his condescending remark, except I made it direct instead of making it indirect, which is another brilliant tactic.

So. Awakened vs enlightened "

Leo created the difference for his convenience-

Awakened allowed you to awaken hundreds of times.

Enlightened happens at once.  Not with psychedelics. 

@Razard86 = enlightened. 

Edited August 26 by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Inliytened1 said:

So. Awakened vs enlightened "

Leo created the difference for his convenience-

Awakened allowed you to awaken hundreds of times.

Enlightened happens at once.  Not with psychedelics. 

@Razard86 = eenlightened. 

You gotta word that better.

[zurew]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I take what is most elegant while explaining the most things. If you show solipsism to be that, I will speak favorly of solipsism.

They dont want to make an abductive argument (inference to the best explanation - where you compare views based on virtues), they try to make the claim that only solipsism is logically possible which is categorically a different approach - but when pressed on it they can never substantiate that claim.