Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 13:49:38 GMT -5
I fear I might be turning solipsistic or something. Is this the worst thing in the world? What does it mean really? Maybe it has its roots in the latin: solo. Alone and isolated from the tuning forks of other people. "Fork" is an interesting word here. I see image of people with forks. Intellectuals waiting to consume me with criticisms. As a defense mechanism I put my ear to the tune of my own tuning fork. I see the absurdity in one car of the train taking the lead for the train's destination. But thankfully I don't have to stay on the train. I can get off and take a bus. Or perhaps I can walk around. Sometimes I jog when crossing the street because it appears I'm running out of time. I see those numbers counting down and I go out of my mind. Better for me to stand on the street corner and do tai chi. It sucks when low lifes yell things from the windows of their cars. I have been known to chase a car down the block. But the solipsist in me tells me not to do this. He says I have seen dogs on the street more intelligent. Stop acting like an ass// wholey foolish person. There's always one guy ruining it for eveybody else. Hi agraves, in my opinion it is not the worst thing in the world, but neither is it the best thing in the world. Existence is formulated from the manifestations of the individual, the world and God. Together they point back to their source, or the transcendent Being from which they were created. Solipsism isn't anymore real than materialism, they are only differentiated in form, but not source.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 24, 2015 9:13:51 GMT -5
If non-duality/Oneness is the case, then solipsism is necessarily the case. Yes? No?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2015 9:26:52 GMT -5
If non-duality/Oneness is the case, then solipsism is necessarily the case. Yes? No? Why would you expect the answer to the same ridiculous question asked over and over again to ever change?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 24, 2015 9:32:45 GMT -5
If non-duality/Oneness is the case, then solipsism is necessarily the case. Yes? No? Why would you expect the answer to the same ridiculous question asked over and over again to ever change? I'll take that as a yes. (I really don't know [what you would say], that's why I asked). Is it a ridiculous question because the answer is obvious? (I really don't know what your answer will be).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2015 9:56:03 GMT -5
Why would you expect the answer to the same ridiculous question asked over and over again to ever change? I'll take that as a yes. (I really don't know [what you would say], that's why I asked). Is it a ridiculous question because the answer is obvious? (I really don't know what your answer will be). But we've had several dialogs with this as the central idea over the past few years. The short answer is no.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 24, 2015 10:53:38 GMT -5
Why would you expect the answer to the same ridiculous question asked over and over again to ever change? I'll take that as a yes. (I really don't know [what you would say], that's why I asked). Is it a ridiculous question because the answer is obvious? (I really don't know what your answer will be). It's a yes.. of course the answer is obvious, and you still don't know how some people will answer.. they are more interested in the games than clarity/simplicity..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2015 11:40:00 GMT -5
(** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2015 13:11:32 GMT -5
Why would you expect the answer to the same ridiculous question asked over and over again to ever change? I'll take that as a yes. (I really don't know [what you would say], that's why I asked). Is it a ridiculous question because the answer is obvious? (I really don't know what your answer will be). If you mean the belief that nothing outside your mind exists, I'd say that already involves some misconceptions. Your mind doesn't exist in any substantial way, as it is simply the movement of thought, and thought is not always happening, so mind is not always appearing. As I define existence, it only applies to that which does not come and go, so I would not say the mind exists, but rather appears. To what does it appear, is an important question. Most folks actually find themselves in those self identifying thoughts, and so there is no 'you' that has a mind. There is mind appearing and disappearing; thoughts happening, which you are aware of, and apparently thoughts happening that you are not aware of, but you can't really know that. In any event, if we assume there are thoughts happening that you are not aware of, it doesn't necessarily mean there are other 'yous'. It may mean that patterns of thought are compartmentalized, allowing for a necessarily individuated experience to happen, but that the experiencer of each of these individuated experiences is the same One. That's not to say that One is the individuated mind/body that solipsism bases it's notions on.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 24, 2015 13:43:16 GMT -5
I'll take that as a yes. (I really don't know [what you would say], that's why I asked). Is it a ridiculous question because the answer is obvious? (I really don't know what your answer will be). If you mean the belief that nothing outside your mind exists, I'd say that already involves some misconceptions. Your mind doesn't exist in any substantial way, as it is simply the movement of thought, and thought is not always happening, so mind is not always appearing. As I define existence, it only applies to that which does not come and go, so I would not say the mind exists, but rather appears. To what does it appear, is an important question. Most folks actually find themselves in those self identifying thoughts, and so there is no 'you' that has a mind. There is mind appearing and disappearing; thoughts happening, which you are aware of, and apparently thoughts happening that you are not aware of, but you can't really know that.In any event, if we assume there are thoughts happening that you are not aware of, it doesn't necessarily mean there are other 'yous'. It may mean that patterns of thought are compartmentalized, allowing for a necessarily individuated experience to happen, but that the experiencer of each of these individuated experiences is the same One. That's not to say that One is the individuated mind/body that solipsism bases it's notions on. hehe...interestingly enough, I had a very similar conversation with my 11 yr. old two days ago, while painting our nails. Out of the blue, she blurted out that she sometimes wonders if perhaps she is the only 'real' person and everyone else appearing in her life might just be a 'robot' of sorts, devoid of the self awareness she experiences. After about 15 minutes of banter on the subject, she concluded that even if it were the case, there's just no way to know for sure...and that others definitely 'seem' to be self aware, and 'real' and thus, it's likely best just to engage 'as if' that's the case.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 24, 2015 14:07:20 GMT -5
If you mean the belief that nothing outside your mind exists, I'd say that already involves some misconceptions. Your mind doesn't exist in any substantial way, as it is simply the movement of thought, and thought is not always happening, so mind is not always appearing. As I define existence, it only applies to that which does not come and go, so I would not say the mind exists, but rather appears. To what does it appear, is an important question. Most folks actually find themselves in those self identifying thoughts, and so there is no 'you' that has a mind. There is mind appearing and disappearing; thoughts happening, which you are aware of, and apparently thoughts happening that you are not aware of, but you can't really know that.In any event, if we assume there are thoughts happening that you are not aware of, it doesn't necessarily mean there are other 'yous'. It may mean that patterns of thought are compartmentalized, allowing for a necessarily individuated experience to happen, but that the experiencer of each of these individuated experiences is the same One. That's not to say that One is the individuated mind/body that solipsism bases it's notions on. hehe...interestingly enough, I had a very similar conversation with my 11 yr. old two days ago, while painting our nails. Out of the blue, she blurted out that she sometimes wonders if perhaps she is the only 'real' person and everyone else appearing in her life might just be a 'robot' of sorts, devoid of the self awareness she experiences. After about 15 minutes of banter on the subject, she concluded that even if it were the case, there's just no way to know for sure...and that others definitely 'seem' to be self aware, and 'real' and thus, it's likely best just to engage 'as if' that's the case. Descartes faced this question. He decided, right after I think therefore I am, being a believer, that God would not have us be deluded, so we can trust that there are real people, places and things out there.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 24, 2015 14:11:21 GMT -5
I'll take that as a yes. (I really don't know [what you would say], that's why I asked). Is it a ridiculous question because the answer is obvious? (I really don't know what your answer will be). But we've had several dialogs with this as the central idea over the past few years. The short answer is no. I don't recall that we've ever discussed solipsism. I'm talking about Solipsism with a capital S. Tzu obviously got this.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 24, 2015 14:12:18 GMT -5
I'll take that as a yes. (I really don't know [what you would say], that's why I asked). Is it a ridiculous question because the answer is obvious? (I really don't know what your answer will be). It's a yes.. of course the answer is obvious, and you still don't know how some people will answer.. they are more interested in the games than clarity/simplicity.. Yes. I didn't think I was being too subtle.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 24, 2015 14:14:59 GMT -5
I'll take that as a yes. (I really don't know [what you would say], that's why I asked). Is it a ridiculous question because the answer is obvious? (I really don't know what your answer will be). If you mean the belief that nothing outside your mind exists, I'd say that already involves some misconceptions. Your mind doesn't exist in any substantial way, as it is simply the movement of thought, and thought is not always happening, so mind is not always appearing. As I define existence, it only applies to that which does not come and go, so I would not say the mind exists, but rather appears. To what does it appear, is an important question. Most folks actually find themselves in those self identifying thoughts, and so there is no 'you' that has a mind. There is mind appearing and disappearing; thoughts happening, which you are aware of, and apparently thoughts happening that you are not aware of, but you can't really know that. In any event, if we assume there are thoughts happening that you are not aware of, it doesn't necessarily mean there are other 'yous'. It may mean that patterns of thought are compartmentalized, allowing for a necessarily individuated experience to happen, but that the experiencer of each of these individuated experiences is the same One. That's not to say that One is the individuated mind/body that solipsism bases it's notions on. It seems you do not understand the consequences of your own position. I mean Solipsism with a capital S.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 24, 2015 14:28:08 GMT -5
hehe...interestingly enough, I had a very similar conversation with my 11 yr. old two days ago, while painting our nails. Out of the blue, she blurted out that she sometimes wonders if perhaps she is the only 'real' person and everyone else appearing in her life might just be a 'robot' of sorts, devoid of the self awareness she experiences. After about 15 minutes of banter on the subject, she concluded that even if it were the case, there's just no way to know for sure...and that others definitely 'seem' to be self aware, and 'real' and thus, it's likely best just to engage 'as if' that's the case. Descartes faced this question. He decided, right after I think therefore I am, being a believer, that God would not have us be deluded, so we can trust that there are real people, places and things out there. I think what I enjoyed most about the conversation with my daughter, other than the fact that she felt no need to arrive at a concrete 'knowing' about the question, was the fact that in the end, practicality prevailed, and she figured there was no point in going against what was appearing at face value.......not that looking beyond the surface of things isn't important and valid at times, but even then, important to remember, it's easy to get led down the garden path of believing in things that only complicate matters and for which there is really no practical value.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 24, 2015 14:34:56 GMT -5
But we've had several dialogs with this as the central idea over the past few years. The short answer is no. I don't recall that we've ever discussed solipsism. I'm talking about Solipsism with a capital S. Tzu obviously got this. We've had several dialogs that all are based on a similar assumption and that all arrive at similar conclusions so the fact that the term hasn't come up is just incidental. Got what? What is it that you think I don't get? Why don you and Tzu' have a dialog about SOI?
|
|