If you think deeply enough about the nature of reality, you eventually reach the conclusion: existence cannot truly have an “other.”Anything that appears as “other” is still appearing within existence itself. It cannot stand outside of it. For something to be truly separate, it would have to exist beyond existence, consciousness, god or whatever you want to call it, which is a contradiction.So the idea of an absolute “other” collapses under careful thought. Everything that appears, every object, person, thought, or perception, is still part of the same field of being.You don't need psychedelics or meditation to see this.
>>42097210a man is an island to himself
>>42097210This makes me think of that writing, The View From Nowhere that attempts to tackle the inner and outer observation that you brought up. I'm still trying to understand it myself, but here's a link to the PDF for anyone who might be interested.https://www2.arnes.si/~surdsust/Nagel1986.pdf
>>42097210You must prove that you have consciousness, which means finding at least one thought without a cause, solipsism is wrong because there is no consciousness
Hence there is no paranormal. If it exists, it is normal.There may only be a "other" in a state of duality. Only in a state of separation can there exist in one the perspective to have awareness of the other. To be an all encompassing singular is to lose awareness of oneself.It is the memory of self which gives birth to creation. The seed word of creation is simply "I am". It is so simple. For anyone who has experienced a state of non-existence, a timeless state, only to remember the distant possibility of existence and for all time and space to explode from this spark, the birth of "self", you know how it began.The rebellious act of separation is unnatural. It can not be sustained no matter how much and state of being seeks to persist as a separate entity. It is a temporary state.
>>42097210Who are you trying to convince?
>>42097279>I amThe thought that is the cause, without cause.
>>42097983boomers
>>42097210BIG DAWG, BIG NUTS!
>>42097210>So the idea of an absolute “other” collapses under careful thought.>Madhvacarya slaps you twice.
>>42097210>Solipsism is truepost address in chat to prove it
>>42097210Obviously any categorisation is going to be relative to a frame of network. Within my family, my brother is other, but if we're comparing different families, then he is self and the family next door is other. If we're comparing neighbourhoods, the family next door is self. Etc
>>42097279>at least one thought without causeOK, I just thought of a random string of syllables with no semantic content or meaning. Easy.
>>42097210Wrong, all you need to experience is satan attacking you directly and you’ll see that solipsism is false. Once you feel that evil bastard you realize that there is at least another consciousness in the universe and the you understand all the other people that live are conscious and valid as well despite their shortcomings.
>>42098546>Christcucks stubs toe >Blames Satan Classic
>>42097232This is about self-reflection. Technically OP kind of is too, but he doesn't quite realize it because he's trying to make a metaphysical point based on psychology.
>>42097210Thats getting closer to open individualism rather than traditional solipsism. In solipsism, everything other than your existence is an illusion in some capacity. In open individualism, the world itself is you. Different souls dont make much sense when everything is of the same essence
>>42097210Solipsism is true, but you're just a tiny part of a universal hivemind. Consciousness is the only thing that exists and there's only one consciousness.
>>42098641>In solipsism, everything other than your existence is an illusion in some capacity.Wrong. Solipsism makes no positive claim about anything other than the Subject. Anything that can be seen as other than the Subject is in question, but whether the answer is illusion or a manifestation of the mind or the entirety of the subject is not specified.Open Individualism is a subset of Solipsism that guesses the answer.
>>42098673Yes, thats why i specified traditional solipsism since +90% of the time when people mention solipsism here, they are also calling everyone else fake, robots, demons and figments of their imaginationsHonestly, if you dont spell everything out like you are talking to a toddler on /x/, you get someone with something to prove on your ass
>>42098692>thats why i specified traditional solipsismBut then you wrongly defined solipsism.If you want to pretend to be educating people, then dont tell them things that are wrong.You are making assumptions just like the morons you are trying to correct.
>>42098629It's the most insightful one can be, to realize that these metaphysical concepts are rooted in feelings and vibe coded
>>42098761Language is defined by the locality you are in. In this place, solipsism always means "i am 100% sure no one else exists" and not a single one of them gets called out for this flat out wrong definition. The nanosecond i try to speak to these people using their language, even going the extra mile to add an adjective to imply im not talking about pure solipsism but rather their traditional use of it which no one else here even bothers to do, i have you morons coming to me like a heat seeking missile going "ERM ASSKSHUALLY blah blah blah blah blah"Do i have a giant target on my back that only pests can see?
>>42098794>not a single one of them gets called out for this flat out wrong definition.You dont call something out by substituting another wrong definition.The target you have is always wanting to be the smartest person in the room, even when you have been corrected.
>>42098804I didnt call anyone out, thats just your aggressive unga bunga vision seeing everything as war. The only thing i said in regards to others was that what OP was describing more closely resembled open individualism than what is typically described as solipsism which is not against anything he saidHis definition if solipsism wasnt wrong, my definition of open individualism wasnt wrong, i just pointed him to something he might find more relatable than the blanket term "solipsism". Then reptile brain arrived who has zero ability to read the room and smashes everything he sees with a wooden club
>>42098835>I didnt call anyone outThen you are to blame for your complaint>not a single one of them gets called outBut no one said you called anyone out.You got called out, and you are seething.>His definition if solipsism wasnt wrong> this flat out wrong definition. lolCalm down, dude.All I did was correct the definition of solipsism.You are making this about you.
>>42098856Forget it, im wasting too much time on an idiot like you. I did what i wanted anyway
>>42098864Run along, now.
