Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Disproof of Solipcism
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Giga
May 18, 2012, 5:05:11 AM5/18/12
to
Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent basis?
If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep myself
distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
route and just stay 'asleep'? Also if I can put myself into a state of
unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
up?
and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent basis?
If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep myself
distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
route and just stay 'asleep'? Also if I can put myself into a state of
unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
up?
Zerkon
May 18, 2012, 7:19:49 AM5/18/12
to
In article <jp53g8$trf$2...@news.albasani.net>, "Giga" says...
of any proof, is a matter of acceptance not a matter of revelation. One
can not prove to a person anything they will not to accept. So I am
taking this as an honest question and not a proclamation cloaked as if a
question.
>
> Could the fact that I loose consciousness
'you' are not the one who 'looses' consciousness. I understand what you
are saying but since we are discussing this specific topic, ideas have
to be very well chosen to fit known and supported reality.
If you do not sleep and rest you will die. This same cycle can be
observed across a great many species. Rest is due to explainable, known
and yet to be known forces much much bigger/larger/older.. whatever..
than any one self. It's a common condition for life on earth and quite
probable everywhere else with a similar physicality . One small aspect
of this proof you speak of.
> every night and then regain it
> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
> power to make myself unconscious
you do not 'have' such power plus the polarized idea of conscious being
separate from unconscious is false. They both are aspects of one
process.
> then why not do that on a permanent basis?
> If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep myself
> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
> route and just stay 'asleep'? Also if I can put myself into a state of
> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
> of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
> up?
>
Solipsism is centered on self alone. Physically impossible and quite
obnoxious.
Solipsism is disproved in one way by the necessity of forcing one's mind
as being detached, neutral and omnipotent otherwise no bad, horrendous
or unpredictable or new event could ever be (thought).
> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
Yes. However, and this is a big HOWever, proof here, as is with the case
> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
of any proof, is a matter of acceptance not a matter of revelation. One
can not prove to a person anything they will not to accept. So I am
taking this as an honest question and not a proclamation cloaked as if a
question.
>
> Could the fact that I loose consciousness
are saying but since we are discussing this specific topic, ideas have
to be very well chosen to fit known and supported reality.
If you do not sleep and rest you will die. This same cycle can be
observed across a great many species. Rest is due to explainable, known
and yet to be known forces much much bigger/larger/older.. whatever..
than any one self. It's a common condition for life on earth and quite
probable everywhere else with a similar physicality . One small aspect
of this proof you speak of.
> every night and then regain it
> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
> power to make myself unconscious
separate from unconscious is false. They both are aspects of one
process.
> then why not do that on a permanent basis?
> If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep myself
> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
> route and just stay 'asleep'? Also if I can put myself into a state of
> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
> of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
> up?
>
obnoxious.
Solipsism is disproved in one way by the necessity of forcing one's mind
as being detached, neutral and omnipotent otherwise no bad, horrendous
or unpredictable or new event could ever be (thought).
Zinnic
May 18, 2012, 7:28:05 AM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 4:05 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
Just staying "asleep" is difficult but practice makes perfect so I am
confident that
my solipscism will finally get the hang of it!
confident that
my solipscism will finally get the hang of it!
Giga
May 18, 2012, 9:44:50 AM5/18/12
to
"Zinnic" <zinni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6860cfdb-0c82-46fd...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Giga
May 18, 2012, 9:49:13 AM5/18/12
to
"Zerkon" <Z...@z.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a1ffa5fd...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <jp53g8$trf$2...@news.albasani.net>, "Giga" says...
>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>
> Yes. However, and this is a big HOWever, proof here, as is with the case
> of any proof, is a matter of acceptance not a matter of revelation. One
> can not prove to a person anything they will not to accept. So I am
> taking this as an honest question and not a proclamation cloaked as if a
> question.
>
>>
>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness
>
> 'you' are not the one who 'looses' consciousness. I understand what you
> are saying but since we are discussing this specific topic, ideas have
> to be very well chosen to fit known and supported reality.
>
> If you do not sleep and rest you will die. This same cycle can be
> observed across a great many species. Rest is due to explainable, known
> and yet to be known forces much much bigger/larger/older.. whatever..
> than any one self. It's a common condition for life on earth and quite
> probable everywhere else with a similar physicality . One small aspect
> of this proof you speak of.
Then I do not make myself unconscious so why not say I 'lose consciousness'.
>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>
> Yes. However, and this is a big HOWever, proof here, as is with the case
> of any proof, is a matter of acceptance not a matter of revelation. One
> can not prove to a person anything they will not to accept. So I am
> taking this as an honest question and not a proclamation cloaked as if a
> question.
>
>>
>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness
>
> 'you' are not the one who 'looses' consciousness. I understand what you
> are saying but since we are discussing this specific topic, ideas have
> to be very well chosen to fit known and supported reality.
>
> If you do not sleep and rest you will die. This same cycle can be
> observed across a great many species. Rest is due to explainable, known
> and yet to be known forces much much bigger/larger/older.. whatever..
> than any one self. It's a common condition for life on earth and quite
> probable everywhere else with a similar physicality . One small aspect
> of this proof you speak of.
That is certainly how it seems to me. I just get to a point where I feel
very tired and then suddenly it is the next morning!
>
>> every night and then regain it
>> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
>> power to make myself unconscious
>
> you do not 'have' such power plus the polarized idea of conscious being
> separate from unconscious is false. They both are aspects of one
> process.
>
>> then why not do that on a permanent basis?
>> If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep
>> myself
>> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
>> route and just stay 'asleep'? Also if I can put myself into a state of
>> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back
>> out
>> of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs
>> sleep,
>> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to
>> wake
>> up?
>>
> Solipsism is centered on self alone. Physically impossible and quite
> obnoxious.
>
it!?
> Solipsism is disproved in one way by the necessity of forcing one's mind
> as being detached, neutral and omnipotent otherwise no bad, horrendous
> or unpredictable or new event could ever be (thought).
It would be really great if you could read and understand the question
before trying to cut it to pieces.
Dare
May 18, 2012, 10:01:35 AM5/18/12
to
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in message news:jp53g8$trf$2...@news.albasani.net...
> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent basis?
> If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep myself
> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
> route and just stay 'asleep'? Also if I can put myself into a state of
> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
> of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
> up?
What would unconsciousness be? Nothingness?
Once the consciousness is gone what would regenerate it?
> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
How would this consciousness come to be?
> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent basis?
> If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep myself
> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
> route and just stay 'asleep'? Also if I can put myself into a state of
> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
> of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
> up?
Once the consciousness is gone what would regenerate it?
Giga
May 18, 2012, 10:53:40 AM5/18/12
to
"Dare" <clyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jp5ko2$guf$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in
> message news:jp53g8$trf$2...@news.albasani.net...
>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>
> How would this consciousness come to be?
Consciousness *does* exist so maybe in much the same it seems to have done
> message news:jp53g8$trf$2...@news.albasani.net...
>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>
> How would this consciousness come to be?
on the Earth, through some kind of self-assembly and evolution (but just
from whatever absolute ground to reality there is rather than a physical
universe say).
>
>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
>> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
>> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent
>> basis? If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to
>> keep myself distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take
>> an easier route and just stay 'asleep'? Also if I can put myself into a
>> state of unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake
>> myself back out of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real
>> body that needs sleep, a much better explanation, as it is these that
>> cause me to sleep and to wake up?
>
> What would unconsciousness be? Nothingness?
> Once the consciousness is gone what would regenerate it?
true) then how do I wake myself up from unconsciousness?
Jack McKinney
May 18, 2012, 11:22:45 AM5/18/12
to
On Fri, May 18, 2012, 10:05am (CDT+6) From: just...@yahoo.co (Giga)
wrote:
<snip>
> If the purpose of my 'producing' this
> illusion of a world is to keep myself
> distracted from my total aloneness and
> isolation why not take an easier route
> and just stay 'asleep'?
Taking thought to the widest edge of edges....
You have proved nothing, other than the possibility that your mission
has already been accomplished... What makes you think that you are not
just dreaming that you are alive; with all of the characters within your
dream, totally created by your own mind...
We each dream up, or create our own reality, with all the characters,
and circumstances within the dream solely the product of our own minds.
And then we connect with others who are also dreaming that they are
alive, and agree to have the same or similar circumstances within the
dreams, so that the dreams or games can be more challenging... This is
kind of like interactive video games...
btw: you wake up from this dream of being alive, when you're dead...
===============
[snip] A description of physical reality as one "place" is very
misleading, though. It sounds singular, as if there were but one reality
that all souls inhabit while present on earth.Yet that is not the case.
According to Seth, we each reside in our own private space continuum,
and that's where we play out our _whole_ life. Our space continuum is
our own reality, and technically we never enter another's.
...
I choose the events I wish to experience, and in they come to my space
continuum. You do the same. How, then, do we work together to create
what seems to be a joint reality? One thing we do is hold the same
assumptions within our private space continuums. We agree to agree that
our exterior environments will match, in general terms. For instance, we
agree on the geography and topography of the earth, the countries and
cities spread around it, the history and language of each place, the
locations of buildings within defined boundaries, the types of food
grown in different regions, the variety of weather conditions around the
globe, etc. So, when I visit England in winter, I see the same things
you do .... again, generally speaking...... ............ From the
Wizards of Consciousness, by Lynda Madden Dahl
I think I'll post more about this in talk philosophy...
wrote:
<snip>
> If the purpose of my 'producing' this
> illusion of a world is to keep myself
> distracted from my total aloneness and
> isolation why not take an easier route
> and just stay 'asleep'?
You have proved nothing, other than the possibility that your mission
has already been accomplished... What makes you think that you are not
just dreaming that you are alive; with all of the characters within your
dream, totally created by your own mind...
We each dream up, or create our own reality, with all the characters,
and circumstances within the dream solely the product of our own minds.
And then we connect with others who are also dreaming that they are
alive, and agree to have the same or similar circumstances within the
dreams, so that the dreams or games can be more challenging... This is
kind of like interactive video games...
btw: you wake up from this dream of being alive, when you're dead...
===============
[snip] A description of physical reality as one "place" is very
misleading, though. It sounds singular, as if there were but one reality
that all souls inhabit while present on earth.Yet that is not the case.
According to Seth, we each reside in our own private space continuum,
and that's where we play out our _whole_ life. Our space continuum is
our own reality, and technically we never enter another's.
...
I choose the events I wish to experience, and in they come to my space
continuum. You do the same. How, then, do we work together to create
what seems to be a joint reality? One thing we do is hold the same
assumptions within our private space continuums. We agree to agree that
our exterior environments will match, in general terms. For instance, we
agree on the geography and topography of the earth, the countries and
cities spread around it, the history and language of each place, the
locations of buildings within defined boundaries, the types of food
grown in different regions, the variety of weather conditions around the
globe, etc. So, when I visit England in winter, I see the same things
you do .... again, generally speaking...... ............ From the
Wizards of Consciousness, by Lynda Madden Dahl
I think I'll post more about this in talk philosophy...
Zinnic
May 18, 2012, 1:38:56 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 9:01 am, "Dare" <clydad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in messagenews:jp53g8$trf$2...@news.albasani.net...
Non-conscious neural activity!
> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in messagenews:jp53g8$trf$2...@news.albasani.net...
DonH
May 18, 2012, 3:00:32 PM5/18/12
to
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in
message news:jp53g8$trf$2...@news.albasani.net...
message news:jp53g8$trf$2...@news.albasani.net...
onto the road in front of an approaching bus - the illusory bus will provide
a Conclusion to the argument.
It is called "solvitur ambulando". QED, or RIP.
Message has been deleted
Giga
May 18, 2012, 3:45:50 PM5/18/12
to
"DonH" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:z%wtr.7176$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
Giga
May 18, 2012, 3:51:02 PM5/18/12
to
"troll" <trol...@go.com> wrote in message
news:ccd4377d-8992-4310...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 18, 2:05 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
> end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>>
>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
>> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue?
>
> Perhaps the world simply appears to shift forward in time
>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>>
>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
>> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue?
>
> while you are sleeping.
>
> The world simply ceases to exist during that time period,
> because you are not there to observe it.
>
> When you awaken again the universe once more
> comes into being, because you are then there
> to observe it.
True, good point, but I still appear to become unconscious. Doesn't really
matter for how long.
>
>> After all if I have the
>> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent
>> basis?
>
> that as many as one percent of all people commit suicide
> successfully. Perhaps the universe does not deserve to
> exist. Perhaps you should destroy it.
I personally don't believe in solipisim (hence the interest in finding a
disproof) and I rather like the universe.
>
>> If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep
>> myself
>> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
>> route and just stay 'asleep'?
>
> you are not. I speculate that if you think that you are not
> the source of all meaning to yourself then you are lost.
That is interesting. Do you think you are the source of all meaning in your
life? Why?
>
>> Also if I can put myself into a state of
>> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back
>> out
>> of this state as well?
>
> why people sleep to begin with.
>
>> Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
>> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to
>> wake
>> up?
>
> How do you know that your body is real if you
>> Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
>> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to
>> wake
>> up?
>
> do not perceive it?
What do you mean? I perceive my body (or at least a simulation of it).
Giga
May 18, 2012, 3:51:49 PM5/18/12
to
"Jack McKinney" <jak...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9448-4FB...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
Jack McKinney
May 18, 2012, 4:19:34 PM5/18/12
to
On Sat, May 19, 2012, 5:00am (CDT+15) From: donlhu...@bigpond.com
(DonH) wrote:
> # The best cure for the Curse of
> Solipsism is for the Faithful to step out
> onto the road in front of an approaching
> bus - the illusory bus will provide a
> Conclusion to the argument.
>> It is called "solvitur ambulando". QED, >> or RIP.
I would strongly advise that you not try that experiment, for surely you
(DonH) wrote:
> # The best cure for the Curse of
> Solipsism is for the Faithful to step out
> onto the road in front of an approaching
> bus - the illusory bus will provide a
> Conclusion to the argument.
>> It is called "solvitur ambulando". QED, >> or RIP.
would get splattered all over the road, and so would anyone else who
didn't *totally* believe in the illusion of matter... But if one did not
believe that matter was solid, would he suffer the consequences that
virtually every one else on this earth would...but would the fictional
character of Spock, of star trek, suffer such a fate...
Always remember this; matter, when examined under an electron microscope
has been found to be 99.99999999% empty space. It is an act of
consciousness that gives matter its solidity....However if you believe
in its solidity, stay out of the road...
Uergil
May 18, 2012, 4:28:04 PM5/18/12
to
In article
<5517188f-eb36-4f84...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> The latest expose of Evolutionism' blunder
> is the supposed dinosaur, Triceratops.
> Turns out, it never existed either. How many
> millions of kids 'played with plastic dinosaurs'
> and actually memorized the names --little
> knowing that they were all never-existing
> creatures.
Curious that we still have fossils of that which Liarboi Broiljab says
does not exist.
The creatures called triceratops did exist. the only question is whether
those fossils previously identified as triceratops are the young of a
species called torosaurus or whether triceratops is a separate species.
To say that fossils which actually exist are non-existing is excessively
stupid even for Liarboi Broiljab, DesignDenier.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20012471-501465.html
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
<5517188f-eb36-4f84...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> The latest expose of Evolutionism' blunder
> is the supposed dinosaur, Triceratops.
> Turns out, it never existed either. How many
> millions of kids 'played with plastic dinosaurs'
> and actually memorized the names --little
> knowing that they were all never-existing
> creatures.
Curious that we still have fossils of that which Liarboi Broiljab says
does not exist.
The creatures called triceratops did exist. the only question is whether
those fossils previously identified as triceratops are the young of a
species called torosaurus or whether triceratops is a separate species.
To say that fossils which actually exist are non-existing is excessively
stupid even for Liarboi Broiljab, DesignDenier.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20012471-501465.html
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
DonH
May 18, 2012, 4:43:33 PM5/18/12
to
"Jack McKinney" <jak...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9448-4FB...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
news:9448-4FB...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
"Pray, dear Mama, what's that on the road,
Spread out like raspberry jam?"
"Hush, hush, my child, that's your Papa,
Run over by a tram."
I think only place in US where Solipsisman would be in trouble from
tramcar is San Francisco.
tooly
May 18, 2012, 6:00:23 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 7:19 am, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
> In article <jp53g8$tr...@news.albasani.net>, "Giga" says...
You cannot disprove solipsism.
The only way you could prove it does not exist, is to 'die'...and then
to observe if this all remains. But then, if you do die...there is
nothing there to observe anything. It's a logical conundrum.
Sorry...no cigar to any of you. Solipsism is one of those special tar
babies with unique character. We dally with it's rational
possibility, but without grappling with the baby itself; something you
do not want to do, because, by today's standards, that would be
tinkering with insanity. Tangible Self appears to be centered around
individual brains...which allows for each brain to signify 'itself' as
the center of existence. Each of us is our own center. When you tie
that up with ego, well, it becomes problematic...probably root of many
mental disorders...and what I call the Caligula syndrome. There is no
way to disprove any one of you are not 'god' (from your own
centeredness)...by a number of scenarios that would demand you to be
'unaware' of the very thing you yourself have created [for some reason
of betterment of your existence etc]. This also goes for the lack of
omnipotence [what seems that way anyway...but you could have set up a
program of some kind, where you'd be swallowed up to lose 'sense of
the horrible responsibility being the 'creator' might be].
'Aloneness' is another possiblity that's crossed my mind as Giga
suggests among his comments.
Given infinite time and eternity...how might a BEING evolve? Imagine,
countless universes, worlds, and experiences that would dwarf even our
most outlandish possible comprehension...all the pitfalls, all the
flaws...in some neverending story of bouncing off walls and constantly
becoming 'better'. It's just a supposition...interesting to think
about, but when connected with the possibilities that solipsism
provides, it can be quite scary. Think of it...existing on the edge
of creation, where out before you is only a 'dark empty canvas' of the
unknown. We take for granted our world, and how we grown succinct in
it, and we make fun and ridicule our ancestors for how ignorant and
stupid they were. But...they were tackling the unkown you see.
And...hate to spoil anyone's dinner...but that 'unkown' still exists;
sitting out there like an anvil that could drop on your head at any
moment, throwing your foundations into turmoil, erasing whole
lifetimes of anchored safety and dependency upon those who 'came
before us'.
What if no one had come before you? And you woke up, in space,
somewhere...and it was only you to create whatever you would? What
monsters would come from your imagination that you'd have to do battle
with? So, maybe getting lost in crowds is something to be desired;
and 'not being one's own god, at all costs', actually a 'better way to
exist'. We may all be alone, but can never be; for always, our own
demons will be there, sitting beside us, ready to strike.
Oh...you don't have demons you say. Ok. Whatever you say. But even
castles eventually wear away to the elements of time. What indeed,
exists there outside those catles; our worlds...when we are stripped
naked, bare to
to an emptiness that cannot be fathomed except as hell itself?
That's why, I, for one, remain cognizant to repair of my 'faith' and
'belief'...because in an empty void, where worlds melt away to divulge
pure consciousness, perhaps that will ALL I have that CAN save me from
the very hells I would otherwise create.
But what's so magical, is that something so stupid and insignifcant as
'faith' and 'belief' could accomplish entire worlds, even paradises,
such that this very mother planet 'could have been' [ha, before the
progressives got a hold of it anyway, LOL].
Now...I think it's destined to just become another minor hell. Who
knows.
Solipsism. Dangerous territory; Don't go there. Better to be lost in
the herds, insignifcant, bumped, pushed, and ridden by the likes of
all the 'intelligent' brains meandering about [like on this NG, ha].
But then, that becomes a special kind of 'another hell'...so, I
dunno. Maybe this place is unsavable? Love existed here though; not
so much anymore I guess. Time will tell I suppose. Me? Like I keep
saying...I'm gonna super nova and burst my heart wide open as one last
hurrah; I hope I can find it again anyway...
> In article <jp53g8$tr...@news.albasani.net>, "Giga" says...
The only way you could prove it does not exist, is to 'die'...and then
to observe if this all remains. But then, if you do die...there is
nothing there to observe anything. It's a logical conundrum.
Sorry...no cigar to any of you. Solipsism is one of those special tar
babies with unique character. We dally with it's rational
possibility, but without grappling with the baby itself; something you
do not want to do, because, by today's standards, that would be
tinkering with insanity. Tangible Self appears to be centered around
individual brains...which allows for each brain to signify 'itself' as
the center of existence. Each of us is our own center. When you tie
that up with ego, well, it becomes problematic...probably root of many
mental disorders...and what I call the Caligula syndrome. There is no
way to disprove any one of you are not 'god' (from your own
centeredness)...by a number of scenarios that would demand you to be
'unaware' of the very thing you yourself have created [for some reason
of betterment of your existence etc]. This also goes for the lack of
omnipotence [what seems that way anyway...but you could have set up a
program of some kind, where you'd be swallowed up to lose 'sense of
the horrible responsibility being the 'creator' might be].
'Aloneness' is another possiblity that's crossed my mind as Giga
suggests among his comments.
Given infinite time and eternity...how might a BEING evolve? Imagine,
countless universes, worlds, and experiences that would dwarf even our
most outlandish possible comprehension...all the pitfalls, all the
flaws...in some neverending story of bouncing off walls and constantly
becoming 'better'. It's just a supposition...interesting to think
about, but when connected with the possibilities that solipsism
provides, it can be quite scary. Think of it...existing on the edge
of creation, where out before you is only a 'dark empty canvas' of the
unknown. We take for granted our world, and how we grown succinct in
it, and we make fun and ridicule our ancestors for how ignorant and
stupid they were. But...they were tackling the unkown you see.
And...hate to spoil anyone's dinner...but that 'unkown' still exists;
sitting out there like an anvil that could drop on your head at any
moment, throwing your foundations into turmoil, erasing whole
lifetimes of anchored safety and dependency upon those who 'came
before us'.
What if no one had come before you? And you woke up, in space,
somewhere...and it was only you to create whatever you would? What
monsters would come from your imagination that you'd have to do battle
with? So, maybe getting lost in crowds is something to be desired;
and 'not being one's own god, at all costs', actually a 'better way to
exist'. We may all be alone, but can never be; for always, our own
demons will be there, sitting beside us, ready to strike.
Oh...you don't have demons you say. Ok. Whatever you say. But even
castles eventually wear away to the elements of time. What indeed,
exists there outside those catles; our worlds...when we are stripped
naked, bare to
to an emptiness that cannot be fathomed except as hell itself?
That's why, I, for one, remain cognizant to repair of my 'faith' and
'belief'...because in an empty void, where worlds melt away to divulge
pure consciousness, perhaps that will ALL I have that CAN save me from
the very hells I would otherwise create.
But what's so magical, is that something so stupid and insignifcant as
'faith' and 'belief' could accomplish entire worlds, even paradises,
such that this very mother planet 'could have been' [ha, before the
progressives got a hold of it anyway, LOL].
Now...I think it's destined to just become another minor hell. Who
knows.
Solipsism. Dangerous territory; Don't go there. Better to be lost in
the herds, insignifcant, bumped, pushed, and ridden by the likes of
all the 'intelligent' brains meandering about [like on this NG, ha].
But then, that becomes a special kind of 'another hell'...so, I
dunno. Maybe this place is unsavable? Love existed here though; not
so much anymore I guess. Time will tell I suppose. Me? Like I keep
saying...I'm gonna super nova and burst my heart wide open as one last
hurrah; I hope I can find it again anyway...
Fred M. McNeill
May 18, 2012, 6:29:12 PM5/18/12
to
'virtual reality'. The situation remains mysterious,
despite 'self' centeredness and ego(hubris).
In a 'virtual reality', anything goes.
Jack McKinney
May 18, 2012, 7:34:34 PM5/18/12
to
On On Fri, May 18, 2012, 8:51pm (CDT+6) From: just...@yahoo.co (Giga)
wrote:
> Just cause 'Seth' 'says' this doesn't
> really count as evidence heh!
What most people think of as being evidence, is vastly overrated...I'll
stick with the Seth material... Most people think that the illusion of a
physical reality, is more real than, the source of that illusion; that
being your own mind/consciousness.
Over the 25 years or so, that I have been studying the Seth material, I
have observed many similar comments from other doubters. I would
estimate that only 10% of those who will actually take the time to read
a Seth quote will actually understand what's being said; and of those
who actually understand the information only 30% will actually
appreciate the significance of the information... I reckon you must one
of the 97% of the audience who either don't understand the information,
or fail to see any significance in the information... But I'll take the
remaining 3%.... There's got to be at least a couple of thousand lurkers
who visit this site from time to time, and that would represent 60
people, and the right 60 people can change the world...
You may not understand this, but the Seth material is AWESOME !
wrote:
> Just cause 'Seth' 'says' this doesn't
> really count as evidence heh!
stick with the Seth material... Most people think that the illusion of a
physical reality, is more real than, the source of that illusion; that
being your own mind/consciousness.
Over the 25 years or so, that I have been studying the Seth material, I
have observed many similar comments from other doubters. I would
estimate that only 10% of those who will actually take the time to read
a Seth quote will actually understand what's being said; and of those
who actually understand the information only 30% will actually
appreciate the significance of the information... I reckon you must one
of the 97% of the audience who either don't understand the information,
or fail to see any significance in the information... But I'll take the
remaining 3%.... There's got to be at least a couple of thousand lurkers
who visit this site from time to time, and that would represent 60
people, and the right 60 people can change the world...
You may not understand this, but the Seth material is AWESOME !
tooly
May 18, 2012, 8:13:27 PM5/18/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
You know Sir, there's an elephant in the room...and yet, it is so
controversial to talk about...
Who was Jesus Christ? Speaking of solipsism...
As I have contemplated, it seems obvious, that if we are talking
'deceit' this man, whomever he was, perhaps existed in a 'deceit of
all deciets'...and yet, he pulled off one of the most unimaginable
things the world has ever seen...to 'capture the imaginations' of tens
of billions of people to even 're-create' the world in a particular
image as his creativity moved us to create [western civ anyway].
Was he insane; just another 'decietful' mind, lost to his own insanity
in a SOLIPSISM of all solipsisms...where he was so convinced of his
own 'GODliness' that he was an extension to 'himself' [my rewording
anyway].
This is tricky turf though. Yes, we can measure antiquity by modern
day standards, and declare just about every one INSANE back then. And
some day, future people [if they are still around] will do the same to
us.
Insanity itself is a 'concept' that may, or may not have validity in a
greater reality of the cosmos [so to speak]. What is NORMal? Do we
measure everything by averages, and grand means...or is there some
measure left for the exceptional and advanced? And how do we
differentiate between genius, brilliance, true wisdom, vision...from
that of just nutty insanity?
Christ, in all likelihood [from the purely rationalist viewpoint of
today's nihlistic scientific mind]...was a mad man [as would be most
prophets of antiquity]. And yet, we find our world 'better' by their
existence; as the foundations of our human grace today, our moral
vindications, and some justifcation for things like law and order. It
is hard to seperate the madness from the vision, the wisdom from the
insanity, the chaos from the order.
Perhaps our understanding of this thing called 'insanity' is off?
See, it is this kind of 'cuttig edge' I speak to; where we don't
really KNOW. We make assessments, and hope our judgements and
intelligence come through to give us the 'correct' pathway through
time. Correct here could have different meanings though...for one can
be 'accurate' and still arrive in hellishness. So, as I see it, it
DOES take a spiritual side to things...a 'conscious resolve' to be and
do good things, and to 'seek' virtue, even if no virtue exists.
For In that very 'seeking' something is created that wasn't before; a
'spirit' perhaps; a connotation of mind, of qualia or whatever term
you have...that we may 'wade' through that ether of nothingness and
come out 'ahead'. It's all a black, empty canvas you know...from
every MOMENT FORWARD we exist. We anchor ourselves from our past,
and step boldly into the future of course...but...there are no
guarantees. Each moment could the last, and every day 'assumed' but
not KNOWN, and Hell could be waiting in our very 'next' step.
We don't really KNOW. We assess.
Hell? What do I mean by 'hell'? The EXPERIENCE you see; the 'bad'
things; the awful and horrid things; the hopelessness and misery of
life caught in it's own web of, yes, deceit as you say. But of a
deceit far more encroaching than simply that of misleading realities
our minds play upon us through percepion.
I don't really know who Jesus Christ was. Was he a deity or a nut?
It doesn't really matter I think, for whatever the message that has
reached my senses, using his image as anchor, that message is a 'good
one'...that 'saves me' from my own demons that exist in the ether of
nothingness, where there is only ME and MY consciousness. Many say
that science is their savoiur these days. I think YOU do, Sir..and
most here, like Immortalist and Dare and others
Science allows us 'boldness' to step ahead, 'assessing' that we KNOW
things now; and that that next step is more and more a guarantee.
But the unknown always exists, sitting out there like some vulture,
biding it's time, peering back down upon us m it's deadwood tree
branch...waiting...waiting...
Science is fine and good I say. But I think this too is 'fool's gold'
where time is too gargantuan, and even science must give way to a
pureness that knows no rationality, no knowledge of anything, and a
consciousness of pure consciousness, where only one thing WILL
WORK...and that's FAITH. "To NOT be afraid"...for fear is the
bottomless pit of our demons. Perhaps you and others here, like
Immort, are of such power, that you need no 'other vision' other than
your own prowress of intellect in such an emptiness...and that's fine
too. Me? I'm mortal; I KNOW nothing, and I FEAR. And if I fear
anything it is that 'aloneness' found in nothingness, where the only
company I can muster are such demons of my own imagination that are
succinct to understand exactly what my weaknesses are.
Hell is like that. yea it is.
I resent having awakened here; among all of 'you'...all them other
egos I must wade through to obtain my daily bread. Pain exists here
on this planet; and You [the people around me] OWN my misery...and I
exist upon YOUR mercy. And I'm tired.
It would be nice...just once in my life...just once, to win one for
the gipper; and put you all in your place. It won't happen of
course.
I must put down this keyboard, step back from my computer, and go
outside my door...to another installment of my torture and
humiliation. I wish I could make you understand...somehow let you
just a glimpse of what I've seen...and the pure terror it was...to
stare naked into the unknown, alone.
Everyone's ego will declare, 'oh sure, I do that all the time', just
as Zerkon speaks to solipsism like pampered aristocracy playing
parlour games. There is 'reality' out there in the cosmos...hard
cutting edges and fear beyond our imagination...'realties' that make
you 'insane'.
I invite anyone here to 'visit' the land of chaos...just for a moment,
and then have the balls to come back here and tell us how much you
KNOW. Like me, you'd then be imprisoned in a land of abroginies,
where the natives are so backwards, there is almost no hope of ever
communicating.
Deceit...sure why not. If that's the reality one wants to paint,
hell...let's see where that one takes us.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 18, 2012, 9:47:31 PM5/18/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
I suspect it wouldn't be the first time solipsism has ended in a suicide.
Terry
--
"For I would ride with you upon the wind, |/
Run on the top of the dishevelled tide, |/ Gentoo Linux
And dance upon the mountains like a flame." |/
-Yeats |/
Terry
--
"For I would ride with you upon the wind, |/
Run on the top of the dishevelled tide, |/ Gentoo Linux
And dance upon the mountains like a flame." |/
-Yeats |/
Giga
May 19, 2012, 3:52:53 AM5/19/12
to
"tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:67b29e1c-888b-4fe1...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
true I don't want to know (I have set it up that way in that case) and if it
is untrue it is trivial.
Giga
May 19, 2012, 3:56:34 AM5/19/12
to
"Jack McKinney" <jak...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9448-4FB...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
what is used to investigate whether something is true or not is reason and
debate. I would be interested if you started a thread with some element of
Seth Material that could be debated.
Giga
May 19, 2012, 4:00:46 AM5/19/12
to
"Jack McKinney" <jak...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9448-4FB...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
actually do the damage!
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 6:57:19 AM5/19/12
to
On 5/18/2012 4:05 AM, Giga <Giga wrote:
> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>
> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent basis?
It would not be as fun.
> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>
> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent basis?
> If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep myself
> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
> route and just stay 'asleep'?
to maximize joy.
> Also if I can put myself into a state of
> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
> of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
> up?
>
>
evidence such that this "weight of evidence" depends on many assumptions
that may turn out to be incorrect, one must examine every possibility.
One possibility would be that within the context of solipsism there
might possibly be a need for rest. Even if the physical body might be an
imaginary object not actually requiring rest itself, the mind may
require rest for non-physiological reasons.
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 7:02:49 AM5/19/12
to
degree and kind of power. It might be the case that many of the
attributes assigned to God are hardly more than marketing hype. God
might instead be a being much like in the movie: Groundhog Day.
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 7:04:29 AM5/19/12
to
On 5/18/2012 9:01 AM, Dare wrote:
> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote
> in message news:jp53g8$trf$2...@news.albasani.net...
>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent
>> consciousness and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>
> How would this consciousness come to be?
That may be a question that even this consciousness can not answer.
> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote
> in message news:jp53g8$trf$2...@news.albasani.net...
>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent
>> consciousness and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>
> How would this consciousness come to be?
>
>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain
>> it every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I
>> have the power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a
>> permanent basis? If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a
>> world is to keep myself distracted from my total aloneness and
>> isolation why not take an easier route and just stay 'asleep'? Also
>> if I can put myself into a state of unconsciousness how am I able to
>> be conscious enough to wake myself back out of this state as well?
>> Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep, a much better
>> explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake up?
>
> What would unconsciousness be? Nothingness?
> Once the consciousness is gone what would regenerate it?
subconsciousness.
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 7:15:00 AM5/19/12
to
button on the game of life, to restart again at its beginning, and thus
eventually pose these same questions all over again.
Although it is known that there can not possibly be any 100% reliable
disproof that invalidates every possible conception of solipsism**,
there can be evidence that tends to show that solipsism is true.
**If the illusion of Not(solipsism) is perfect such that there is no
discernable difference between this illusion of Not(solipsism)and actual
Not(solipsism, then Not(solipsism) can not be disproven.
On the other hand if the illusion of Not(solipsism) is not quite
perfect, then evidence can be derived that tends to support the
tentative conclusion of solipsism.
What kinds of things could provide evidence that solipsism is true?
Jack McKinney
May 19, 2012, 7:11:29 AM5/19/12
to
ON Sat, May 19, 2012, 8:56am (CDT+6) From: just...@yahoo.co (Giga)
wrote:
Just because it very impressive doesn't make it true either. In
philosophy what is used to investigate whether something is true or not
is reason and debate. I would be interested if you started a thread with
some element of Seth Material that could be debated.
=================
The Seth material is not a belief system as such, its basic tenet is the
idea that each individual creates his own reality. PERIOD. No debate
required... Now Seth will say this in a thousand different ways; but the
message is always the same, that being, each person creates his own
reality....
If I tell you that you are creating your own reality, the only way you
can disagree with me is to claim that you're not creating your own
reality...and then you would probably provide me with multiple *bogus*
examples of instances when you didn't create your own reality... and
that would be the extent of the entire so-called debate...
BEEN THERE, DONE THAT; NO DEBATING REQUIRED, NOR IS ANY PROOF NEEDED...
Or one could say that I am always engaged in an on going debate, because
nearly everything I post revolves around that basic theme...we each
create our own reality.
wrote:
Just because it very impressive doesn't make it true either. In
philosophy what is used to investigate whether something is true or not
is reason and debate. I would be interested if you started a thread with
some element of Seth Material that could be debated.
The Seth material is not a belief system as such, its basic tenet is the
idea that each individual creates his own reality. PERIOD. No debate
required... Now Seth will say this in a thousand different ways; but the
message is always the same, that being, each person creates his own
reality....
If I tell you that you are creating your own reality, the only way you
can disagree with me is to claim that you're not creating your own
reality...and then you would probably provide me with multiple *bogus*
examples of instances when you didn't create your own reality... and
that would be the extent of the entire so-called debate...
BEEN THERE, DONE THAT; NO DEBATING REQUIRED, NOR IS ANY PROOF NEEDED...
Or one could say that I am always engaged in an on going debate, because
nearly everything I post revolves around that basic theme...we each
create our own reality.
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 7:20:24 AM5/19/12
to
On 5/18/2012 4:05 AM, Giga <Giga wrote:
> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>
> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent basis?
> If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep myself
> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
> route and just stay 'asleep'? Also if I can put myself into a state of
> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
> of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
> up?
>
>
This is the best book on this subject that I have ever found:
> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>
> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent basis?
> If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep myself
> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
> route and just stay 'asleep'? Also if I can put myself into a state of
> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
> of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
> up?
>
>
Enlightenment-Beginners-Discovering-Dance-Divine
http://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Beginners-Discovering-Dance-Divine/dp/159181040X/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337426262&sr=1-1-spell
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 7:21:58 AM5/19/12
to
On 5/18/2012 2:06 PM, troll wrote:
> On May 18, 2:05 am, "Giga"<"Giga"<just(removetheseandaddmatthe
> On May 18, 2:05 am, "Giga"<"Giga"<just(removetheseandaddmatthe
> end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>>
>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
>> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue?
>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>>
>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
>> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue?
> Perhaps the world simply appears to shift forward in time
> while you are sleeping.
>
> The world simply ceases to exist during that time period,
> because you are not there to observe it.
>
> When you awaken again the universe once more
> comes into being, because you are then there
> to observe it.
>
> while you are sleeping.
>
> The world simply ceases to exist during that time period,
> because you are not there to observe it.
>
> When you awaken again the universe once more
> comes into being, because you are then there
> to observe it.
>
>> After all if I have the
>> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent basis?
>> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent basis?
> Well, that is your choice. Some people have speculated
> that as many as one percent of all people commit suicide
> successfully. Perhaps the universe does not deserve to
> exist. Perhaps you should destroy it.
>
> that as many as one percent of all people commit suicide
> successfully. Perhaps the universe does not deserve to
> exist. Perhaps you should destroy it.
>
>> If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep myself
>> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
>> route and just stay 'asleep'?
>> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
>> route and just stay 'asleep'?
> To you, you are the source of all meaning, although to me,
> you are not. I speculate that if you think that you are not
> the source of all meaning to yourself then you are lost.
>
> you are not. I speculate that if you think that you are not
> the source of all meaning to yourself then you are lost.
>
>> Also if I can put myself into a state of
>> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
>> of this state as well?
>> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
>> of this state as well?
> It is a mystery. I doubt that anyone really knows
> why people sleep to begin with.
>
> why people sleep to begin with.
>
>> Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
>> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
>> up?
>> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
>> up?
> How do you know that your body is real if you
> do not perceive it?
Some good points.
> do not perceive it?
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 7:32:17 AM5/19/12
to
there are some such that solipsism can not possibly be disproven. Within
this same set (of every possibility) though, there are instances where
evidence can be gathered to support that solipsism is true.
What kinds of evidence would tend to support that solipsism is true?
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 7:33:14 AM5/19/12
to
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 7:37:35 AM5/19/12
to
singular. It could be the case that the consciousness of every being is
entirely derived from the subconsciousness of a single being.
Giga
May 19, 2012, 10:34:47 AM5/19/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
news:F8CdnawtbMlE4CrS...@giganews.com...
'illusion' of a complex world but not the power to make myself unconscious
(even though I do indeed make myself unconscious, if solisism is true).
Giga
May 19, 2012, 10:35:59 AM5/19/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
Giga
May 19, 2012, 10:38:35 AM5/19/12
to
news:28897-4FB...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
What *reason* (other than you heard it somewhere or other) do you have for
thinking we all create our own individual reality? Are you saying I have
created your post to somehow remind myself that I create my own reality?
thinking we all create our own individual reality? Are you saying I have
created your post to somehow remind myself that I create my own reality?
Giga
May 19, 2012, 10:40:33 AM5/19/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
It could be that that singular being is capable of splitting itself, or
splitting bits off itself, to produce other individuals.
Giga
May 19, 2012, 10:45:35 AM5/19/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
generations may think of. Anyway my attempt to disprove it has not been
disproven IMO.
>Within this same set (of every possibility) though, there are instances
>where evidence can be gathered to support that solipsism is true.
>
> What kinds of evidence would tend to support that solipsism is true?
>
not want to know. It might be worth trying to disprove it however to save
some people a lot of mental anguish for nothing. Anyway you can be no help
in this project as you have already decided it cannot be disproven and is
probably the case, it seems to me.
Giga
May 19, 2012, 10:51:27 AM5/19/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
> On 5/18/2012 4:05 AM, Giga <Giga wrote:
>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>>
>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
>> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
>> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent
>> basis?
> It would not be as fun.
>
That could be right, in which case it is not only an attempt to avoid
>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>>
>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
>> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
>> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent
>> basis?
> It would not be as fun.
>
negative things (like aloneness etc) but also to actively pursue positive
things (like fun). At which point it becomes quite difficult to explain some
of the suffering 'I have been inflicting on myself'?
>> If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep
>> myself
>> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
>> route and just stay 'asleep'?
> There can be a much greater purpose than this. A better purpose would be
> to maximize joy.
>
>> Also if I can put myself into a state of
>> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back
>> out
>> of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs
>> sleep,
>> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to
>> wake
>> up?
>>
>>
> When one is looking for actual disproof, rather than a mere weight of
> evidence such that this "weight of evidence" depends on many assumptions
> that may turn out to be incorrect, one must examine every possibility.
>
> One possibility would be that within the context of solipsism there might
> possibly be a need for rest. Even if the physical body might be an
> imaginary object not actually requiring rest itself, the mind may require
> rest for non-physiological reasons.
implausible. And how do 'I wake myself back up' when I am unconscious?
Giga
May 19, 2012, 10:55:24 AM5/19/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 11:07:14 AM5/19/12
to
be disproven.
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 11:14:35 AM5/19/12
to
to cause these various selves to merge back into one, at any moment and
for as little as a single moment.
It is this last aspect that provides the evidence that solipsism is the
truth.
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 11:20:47 AM5/19/12
to
are no negative numbers greater than three? That solipsism can not be
disproven is known in this same way.
>> Within this same set (of every possibility) though, there are instances
>> where evidence can be gathered to support that solipsism is true.
>>
>> What kinds of evidence would tend to support that solipsism is true?
>>
> It is not worth investigating if it is true because, if it is, I probably do
> not want to know. It might be worth trying to disprove it however to save
> some people a lot of mental anguish for nothing. Anyway you can be no help
> in this project as you have already decided it cannot be disproven and is
> probably the case, it seems to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate
<//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/postulate#Pronunciation>, is both irrefutable
<//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irrefutable#English> and yet indefensible in
the same manner.
Zerkon
May 19, 2012, 12:00:07 PM5/19/12
to
In article <jp5k4g$v24$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Giga" says...
phrases and ideas are just not correct even though they might be correct
in most discussions. So I am not saying you are wrong here exactly but I
think you need to re-think these easy phrases over when discussing this
issue.
Your feelings here are way way after the fact. What you are feeling is
an aspect of a qualifiable universal process. "Since these conditions
exists, then this stuff (tired) is happening" "Tired" here = Gravity,
oxygen level, type of food, water and air, body weight.... the
complexity of why the condition of fatigue exists that you then (really)
experience then feel seems infinite. It most likely is if trying to
explain it completely inside what is known about 'what makes all humans
tired'. Even "I, human" fads very fast into a trans-species commonality.
Bottom line tho, is it is not a consequence of your consciousness,
(y)our consciousness is a consequence of it.
> I just get to a point where I feel very tired
>
>
Look, we are speaking on a topic that certain common and rather informal
>
>
phrases and ideas are just not correct even though they might be correct
in most discussions. So I am not saying you are wrong here exactly but I
think you need to re-think these easy phrases over when discussing this
issue.
Your feelings here are way way after the fact. What you are feeling is
an aspect of a qualifiable universal process. "Since these conditions
exists, then this stuff (tired) is happening" "Tired" here = Gravity,
oxygen level, type of food, water and air, body weight.... the
complexity of why the condition of fatigue exists that you then (really)
experience then feel seems infinite. It most likely is if trying to
explain it completely inside what is known about 'what makes all humans
tired'. Even "I, human" fads very fast into a trans-species commonality.
Bottom line tho, is it is not a consequence of your consciousness,
(y)our consciousness is a consequence of it.
Zerkon
May 19, 2012, 12:00:48 PM5/19/12
to
In article <67b29e1c-888b-4fe1-929e-2bddb04dab25
@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, rd...@bellsouth.net says...
> You cannot disprove solipsism.
>
In your case I agree.
@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, rd...@bellsouth.net says...
> You cannot disprove solipsism.
>
In your case I agree.
Zerkon
May 19, 2012, 12:06:38 PM5/19/12
to
In article <E9WdnTxJiOEoHSrS...@giganews.com>, Peter Olcott
says...
says...
> What kinds of things could provide evidence that solipsism is true?
>
Mirror isolation and a belief in circular reasoning.
>
Zerkon
May 19, 2012, 12:09:29 PM5/19/12
to
In article <d6016c9c-d9eb-474c-a571-
0a265b...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, rd...@bellsouth.net says...
> There is 'reality' out there in the cosmos
>
.... and in the TV remember.
0a265b...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, rd...@bellsouth.net says...
> There is 'reality' out there in the cosmos
>
.... and in the TV remember.
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 12:24:46 PM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/2012 9:51 AM, Giga <Giga wrote:
> "Peter Olcott"<OCR4Screen> wrote in message
> news:26idnaMPM6cS4SrS...@giganews.com...
>> On 5/18/2012 4:05 AM, Giga<Giga wrote:
>>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>>>
>>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
>>> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
>>> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent
>>> basis?
>> It would not be as fun.
>>
> That could be right, in which case it is not only an attempt to avoid
> negative things (like aloneness etc) but also to actively pursue positive
> things (like fun). At which point it becomes quite difficult to explain some
> of the suffering 'I have been inflicting on myself'?
Strength of character. As one copes with suffering they can become
> "Peter Olcott"<OCR4Screen> wrote in message
> news:26idnaMPM6cS4SrS...@giganews.com...
>> On 5/18/2012 4:05 AM, Giga<Giga wrote:
>>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>>>
>>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
>>> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
>>> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent
>>> basis?
>> It would not be as fun.
>>
> That could be right, in which case it is not only an attempt to avoid
> negative things (like aloneness etc) but also to actively pursue positive
> things (like fun). At which point it becomes quite difficult to explain some
> of the suffering 'I have been inflicting on myself'?
increasingly immune to the effects of suffering. Much of suffering comes
simply from dysfunctional habits of thinking.
>
>>> If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep
>>> myself
>>> distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
>>> route and just stay 'asleep'?
>> There can be a much greater purpose than this. A better purpose would be
>> to maximize joy.
> Then why not create other real consciounesses?
More literally *all is one*.
Wholly is the One, complete unto itself.
In Michelangelo's portrait of God creating Adam, God was surrounded by
"others".
In the Genesis God is referred to in the plural, in our likeness.
>
>>> Also if I can put myself into a state of
>>> unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back
>>> out
>>> of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs
>>> sleep,
>>> a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to
>>> wake
>>> up?
>>>
>>>
>> When one is looking for actual disproof, rather than a mere weight of
>> evidence such that this "weight of evidence" depends on many assumptions
>> that may turn out to be incorrect, one must examine every possibility.
>>
>> One possibility would be that within the context of solipsism there might
>> possibly be a need for rest. Even if the physical body might be an
>> imaginary object not actually requiring rest itself, the mind may require
>> rest for non-physiological reasons.
> Again. I have all this power and yet this weakness. This is quite
> implausible. And how do 'I wake myself back up' when I am unconscious?
>
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 12:37:15 PM5/19/12
to
true nature of reality to fully integrating this truth into one's life.
I am not yet a Buddha.
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 1:23:04 PM5/19/12
to
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 1:22:14 PM5/19/12
to
Immortalist
May 19, 2012, 1:50:04 PM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 8:07 am, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote:
> On 5/19/2012 9:34 AM, Giga <Giga wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Peter Olcott"<OCR4Screen> wrote in message
> >news:F8CdnawtbMlE4CrS...@giganews.com...
> >> On 5/18/2012 8:49 AM, Giga<Giga wrote:
> >>> "Zerkon"<Z...@z.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:MPG.2a1ffa5fd...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> In article<jp53g8$tr...@news.albasani.net>, "Giga" says...
> On 5/19/2012 9:34 AM, Giga <Giga wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Peter Olcott"<OCR4Screen> wrote in message
> >news:F8CdnawtbMlE4CrS...@giganews.com...
> >> On 5/18/2012 8:49 AM, Giga<Giga wrote:
> >>> "Zerkon"<Z...@z.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:MPG.2a1ffa5fd...@news.eternal-september.org...
evidence then how can you claim the issue is decided one way or the
other?
Antinomies are contradictions that follow necessarily from our
attempts to conceive the nature of reality beyound the boundries of
our ability to sense things. Antinomies cannot be resolved and
attempts to conceive the reality beyond the representations derived
from sensory impulses will always produce irresolvable contradictions.
Speculative reason will be mis-applied beyond the limits of possible
experience while considering such topics. The contradiction arises
because valid arguments can be made in favour of both views. If
unresolved this antimony could lead to 'the euthanasia of pure
reason' (AKA skepticism).
They are contradictory, but validly proven pairs of claims that reason
is compelled toward. The contradictory claims could both be proven
because they both shared the mistaken metaphysical assumption that we
can have knowledge of things as they are in themselves, independent of
the conditions of our experience of them.
An antinomy produces a self-contradiction by accepted ways of
reasoning. It establishes that some tacit and trusted pattern of
reasoning must be made explicit and henceforward be avoided or
revised.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=antinomy+kant
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 2:18:53 PM5/19/12
to
of the claim, evidence can be derived to support it.
Jack McKinney
May 19, 2012, 2:21:17 PM5/19/12
to
On Sat, May 19, 2012, 3:38pm (CDT+6) From: just...@yahoo.co (Giga)
wrote:
What *reason* (other than you heard it somewhere or other) do you have
for thinking we all create our own individual reality? _Are you saying I
==============
EXACTLY
wrote:
What *reason* (other than you heard it somewhere or other) do you have
have created your post to somehow remind myself that I create my own
reality_?
==============
EXACTLY
Fred M. McNeill
May 19, 2012, 3:17:49 PM5/19/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 10:05:11 +0100, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co>
wrote:
>Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>
>Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain it
"Solipsism" is a 'human' concept,
thus part of the forced fraud.
wrote:
>Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent consciousness
>and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>
>every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have the
>power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent basis?
>If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep myself
>distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
>route and just stay 'asleep'? Also if I can put myself into a state of
>unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
>of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
>a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
>up?
>
The situation is a fraud, live with it.
>If the purpose of my 'producing' this illusion of a world is to keep myself
>distracted from my total aloneness and isolation why not take an easier
>route and just stay 'asleep'? Also if I can put myself into a state of
>unconsciousness how am I able to be conscious enough to wake myself back out
>of this state as well? Isn't a real world, and a real body that needs sleep,
>a much better explanation, as it is these that cause me to sleep and to wake
>up?
>
"Solipsism" is a 'human' concept,
thus part of the forced fraud.
Giga
May 19, 2012, 4:04:10 PM5/19/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
Giga
May 19, 2012, 4:07:06 PM5/19/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
> On 5/19/2012 9:51 AM, Giga <Giga wrote:
>> "Peter Olcott"<OCR4Screen> wrote in message
>> news:26idnaMPM6cS4SrS...@giganews.com...
>>> On 5/18/2012 4:05 AM, Giga<Giga wrote:
>>>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent
>>>> consciousness
>>>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>>>>
>>>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain
>>>> it
>>>> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have
>>>> the
>>>> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent
>>>> basis?
>>> It would not be as fun.
>>>
>> That could be right, in which case it is not only an attempt to avoid
>> negative things (like aloneness etc) but also to actively pursue positive
>> things (like fun). At which point it becomes quite difficult to explain
>> some
>> of the suffering 'I have been inflicting on myself'?
> Strength of character. As one copes with suffering they can become
> increasingly immune to the effects of suffering. Much of suffering comes
> simply from dysfunctional habits of thinking.
So 'I create' suffering in order to learn how to avoid suffering!?
>> "Peter Olcott"<OCR4Screen> wrote in message
>> news:26idnaMPM6cS4SrS...@giganews.com...
>>> On 5/18/2012 4:05 AM, Giga<Giga wrote:
>>>> Is it possible to disprove that I/you are the only existent
>>>> consciousness
>>>> and the whole world is a self-produced illusion?
>>>>
>>>> Could the fact that I loose consciousness every night and then regain
>>>> it
>>>> every morning be a sign that solipcism is untrue? After all if I have
>>>> the
>>>> power to make myself unconscious then why not do that on a permanent
>>>> basis?
>>> It would not be as fun.
>>>
>> That could be right, in which case it is not only an attempt to avoid
>> negative things (like aloneness etc) but also to actively pursue positive
>> things (like fun). At which point it becomes quite difficult to explain
>> some
>> of the suffering 'I have been inflicting on myself'?
> Strength of character. As one copes with suffering they can become
> increasingly immune to the effects of suffering. Much of suffering comes
> simply from dysfunctional habits of thinking.
consciousness?
Giga
May 19, 2012, 4:10:06 PM5/19/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
a sense based on agreed assumptions.
>That solipsism can not be disproven is known in this same way.
>
>>> Within this same set (of every possibility) though, there are instances
>>> where evidence can be gathered to support that solipsism is true.
>>>
>>> What kinds of evidence would tend to support that solipsism is true?
>>>
>> It is not worth investigating if it is true because, if it is, I probably
>> do
>> not want to know. It might be worth trying to disprove it however to save
>> some people a lot of mental anguish for nothing. Anyway you can be no
>> help
>> in this project as you have already decided it cannot be disproven and is
>> probably the case, it seems to me.
> It is common knowledge that it can not be disproven.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
>
> it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate
> <//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/postulate#Pronunciation>, is both irrefutable
> <//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irrefutable#English> and yet indefensible in the
> same manner.
>
Giga
May 19, 2012, 4:10:47 PM5/19/12
to
news:4608-4FB...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
So you deny that you created your post?
Giga
May 19, 2012, 4:12:24 PM5/19/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
>
> It is this last aspect that provides the evidence that solipsism is the
> truth.
Giga
May 19, 2012, 4:13:45 PM5/19/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
time. You are surely not going to appeal to that fallacy!? Well you did.
Giga
May 19, 2012, 4:16:28 PM5/19/12
to
news:MPG.2a218d80b...@news.eternal-september.org...
You don't seem to be sticking to the topic?
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 5:18:57 PM5/19/12
to
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 5:24:21 PM5/19/12
to
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 5:28:37 PM5/19/12
to
when no discernible difference exists. Only when a discernible
difference exists can a difference be discerned.
How does one tell the difference between a fake ten dollar bill and a
genuine ten dollar bill when the fake is a perfect fake with no
differences existing.
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 5:31:57 PM5/19/12
to
Peter Olcott
May 19, 2012, 5:31:23 PM5/19/12
to
Monism merely does not state all of this truth directly, and instead
dances around it.
Jack McKinney
May 19, 2012, 6:29:27 PM5/19/12
to
On Sat, May 19, 2012, 9:10pm (CDT+6) From: just...@yahoo.co (Giga)
You don't understand, if I'm creating my own reality, and if you somehow
exist within my reality, then I must have created you, so that I could
respond to your misconceptions about the nature of reality...
wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2012, 3:38pm (CDT+6) From: just...@yahoo.co (Giga)
wrote:
>>> What *reason* (other than you heard
>>> it somewhere or other) do you have
>>> for thinking we all create our own
>>> individual reality? _Are you saying I
>>> have created your post to somehow
>>> remind myself that I create my own
>>> reality_?
==============
EXACTLY
> So you deny that you created your post?
==================
On Sat, May 19, 2012, 3:38pm (CDT+6) From: just...@yahoo.co (Giga)
wrote:
>>> What *reason* (other than you heard
>>> it somewhere or other) do you have
>>> for thinking we all create our own
>>> individual reality? _Are you saying I
>>> have created your post to somehow
>>> remind myself that I create my own
>>> reality_?
==============
EXACTLY
> So you deny that you created your post?
You don't understand, if I'm creating my own reality, and if you somehow
exist within my reality, then I must have created you, so that I could
respond to your misconceptions about the nature of reality...
Jack McKinney
May 19, 2012, 7:32:09 PM5/19/12
to
On Sat. Peter Olcott asked, what is the Seth material?
Please find below, a small sampling of the Seth material...
From my perspective it appears that at least some of your views tie in
very well with this information.... But I am curious, does any of this
resonate with you? You will not understand all of it, because I am not
starting at any beginning, but you should be able to get a feel for
what's being said...
My First Entities Post
===================
[Snip] In the beginning the CU's, then, units of consciousness, existing
within a divine psychological gestalt, endowed with the unimaginable
creativity of that sublime identity, begin themselves to create, to
explore, and to fulfill those innate values by which they were
characterized. Operating both as waves and particles, directed in part
by their own creative restlessness, and directed in part by the
unquenchable creativity of All That Is, they embarked upon the project
that brought time and space and your entire universe into being. They
were the first entities, then..
I want you to try to imagine a situation in which there exists a
psychological force that includes within its capabilities the ability to
act simultaneously on the most microscopic and the most macroscopic
levels; that can form within itself a million separate inviolate unique
identities, and that can still operate as a part of those identities,
and as a larger unit that is their source -- in which it is a wave from
which the particle emerge. That description fits our units of
consciousness.
They built your world from the inside out. As physical creatures, they
focused upon what you think of as physical identities; separate,
individual differences, endowing each physical consciousness with its
own original variations and creative potentials, its own opportunity for
completely original experience, and a viewpoint or platform from which
to participate in reality -- one that at that level could not be
experienced in the same way by any other individual. This is the
privileged, always new, private and immediate, direct experience of any
individual of any species, or of any degree, as it encounters the
objective universe.
At other levels, while each individuality is maintained, it rides the
wavelike formations of consciousness. It is everywhere at once, and the
units of consciousness that make up your cells know the positions of all
others such units, both in time and space.
In the beginning, then, these units operated both as identities or
particles, and as waves. The main concentration was not yet physical in
your tems. What you now think of as the dream state was the waking one,
for it was still the recognized form of purposeful activity, creativity,
and power. The dream state continues to be a connective between the two
realities, and as a species you literally learned to walk by first being
sleepwalkers. You walked in your sleep. You dreamed your languages. You
spoke in your dreams and later wrote down the alphabets -- and your
knowledge and your intellects have always been fired, sharpened,
propelled by the great inner reality from which your minds emerged.
Physical matter by itself could never produce consciousness. One mind
alone could not come into being from chance alone: one thought could not
leap from an infinite number of nerve ends, if matter itself was not
initially alive with consciousness. A man who believes life has little
meaning, quickly leaves life --- and a meaningless existence could never
produce life. Nor was the universe created for one species alone, by a
God who is simply a supervision of the same species -- as willful and
destructive as man at his worst.
Instead, you have an inner dimension of activity, a vast field of
multidimensional creativity, a Creator that becomes a portion of each of
its creations, and yet a Creator that is greater than the sum of its
parts: a Creator that can know itself as a mouse in a field, or as the
field, or as the continent upon which the field rests, or as the planet
that holds the continent, or as the universe that holds the world -- a
force that is whole yet divisible, that is one and the inconceivably
many, a force that is eternal and mortal at once, a force that plunges
headlong into its own creativity, forming the seasons and experiencing
them as well, glorifying in individuation, and yet always aware of the
great unity that is within and behind and through all experience of
individuality: a force from which each moment pasts and futures flow out
in every conceivable direction.
There is a point here that I want to emphasize before we go too far, and
it is this: The dream world is not an aimless nonlogical, unintellectual
field of activity. It is only that your own perspective closes out much
of its vast reality; for the dreaming intellect can put your computers
to shame. I am not, therefore putting the intellectual capacities in the
background -- but I am saying that they emerge as you know them because
of the dreaming self's uninterrupted use of the full power of the united
intellect and intuitions.
The intellectual abilities as you know them cannot compare to those
greater capacities that are a part of your own inner reality. SETH
Please find below, a small sampling of the Seth material...
From my perspective it appears that at least some of your views tie in
very well with this information.... But I am curious, does any of this
resonate with you? You will not understand all of it, because I am not
starting at any beginning, but you should be able to get a feel for
what's being said...
My First Entities Post
===================
[Snip] In the beginning the CU's, then, units of consciousness, existing
within a divine psychological gestalt, endowed with the unimaginable
creativity of that sublime identity, begin themselves to create, to
explore, and to fulfill those innate values by which they were
characterized. Operating both as waves and particles, directed in part
by their own creative restlessness, and directed in part by the
unquenchable creativity of All That Is, they embarked upon the project
that brought time and space and your entire universe into being. They
were the first entities, then..
I want you to try to imagine a situation in which there exists a
psychological force that includes within its capabilities the ability to
act simultaneously on the most microscopic and the most macroscopic
levels; that can form within itself a million separate inviolate unique
identities, and that can still operate as a part of those identities,
and as a larger unit that is their source -- in which it is a wave from
which the particle emerge. That description fits our units of
consciousness.
They built your world from the inside out. As physical creatures, they
focused upon what you think of as physical identities; separate,
individual differences, endowing each physical consciousness with its
own original variations and creative potentials, its own opportunity for
completely original experience, and a viewpoint or platform from which
to participate in reality -- one that at that level could not be
experienced in the same way by any other individual. This is the
privileged, always new, private and immediate, direct experience of any
individual of any species, or of any degree, as it encounters the
objective universe.
At other levels, while each individuality is maintained, it rides the
wavelike formations of consciousness. It is everywhere at once, and the
units of consciousness that make up your cells know the positions of all
others such units, both in time and space.
In the beginning, then, these units operated both as identities or
particles, and as waves. The main concentration was not yet physical in
your tems. What you now think of as the dream state was the waking one,
for it was still the recognized form of purposeful activity, creativity,
and power. The dream state continues to be a connective between the two
realities, and as a species you literally learned to walk by first being
sleepwalkers. You walked in your sleep. You dreamed your languages. You
spoke in your dreams and later wrote down the alphabets -- and your
knowledge and your intellects have always been fired, sharpened,
propelled by the great inner reality from which your minds emerged.
Physical matter by itself could never produce consciousness. One mind
alone could not come into being from chance alone: one thought could not
leap from an infinite number of nerve ends, if matter itself was not
initially alive with consciousness. A man who believes life has little
meaning, quickly leaves life --- and a meaningless existence could never
produce life. Nor was the universe created for one species alone, by a
God who is simply a supervision of the same species -- as willful and
destructive as man at his worst.
Instead, you have an inner dimension of activity, a vast field of
multidimensional creativity, a Creator that becomes a portion of each of
its creations, and yet a Creator that is greater than the sum of its
parts: a Creator that can know itself as a mouse in a field, or as the
field, or as the continent upon which the field rests, or as the planet
that holds the continent, or as the universe that holds the world -- a
force that is whole yet divisible, that is one and the inconceivably
many, a force that is eternal and mortal at once, a force that plunges
headlong into its own creativity, forming the seasons and experiencing
them as well, glorifying in individuation, and yet always aware of the
great unity that is within and behind and through all experience of
individuality: a force from which each moment pasts and futures flow out
in every conceivable direction.
There is a point here that I want to emphasize before we go too far, and
it is this: The dream world is not an aimless nonlogical, unintellectual
field of activity. It is only that your own perspective closes out much
of its vast reality; for the dreaming intellect can put your computers
to shame. I am not, therefore putting the intellectual capacities in the
background -- but I am saying that they emerge as you know them because
of the dreaming self's uninterrupted use of the full power of the united
intellect and intuitions.
The intellectual abilities as you know them cannot compare to those
greater capacities that are a part of your own inner reality. SETH
Giga
May 20, 2012, 6:11:27 AM5/20/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
itself.
Giga
May 20, 2012, 6:20:05 AM5/20/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
putting forward. But anyway it is not solipsism. Solipsism is the belief
that the individual human is the only existent real entity. However in the
philosophy you are discussing the individual human is really an expression
of a greater entity, as are other human beings and the whole world. I would
argue that just because an individual human being is an expression of a
greater entity does not mean they are any *less* an individual human being
(IHB). Obviously, if this is true, then every time in the past we labelled
someone an 'IHB' they were in fact this expression of a greater enitity
(EGE). Therefore IHB=EGE and EGE=IHB, they are the same, or so your argument
goes, but this realisation changes nothing. An IHB is unchanged because of
this. So maybe the position you are putting forward could be called common
sense theism as it seems compatible with that.
Giga
May 20, 2012, 6:25:15 AM5/20/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
do I 'wake myself from unconsciousness' if I am the only existent
consciousness?
>
> How does one tell the difference between a fake ten dollar bill and a
> genuine ten dollar bill when the fake is a perfect fake with no
> differences existing.
>
invalid because if there were no differences then the bill would have been
produced by the relevant authorized authority using the usual methods and
materials and under the proper procedures. In which case it would not be a
fake.
Giga
May 20, 2012, 6:29:42 AM5/20/12
to
news:18291-4FB...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
=I find myself in harmony with most of that I think. Thank you. I find this
idea of individuality and oneness not being exclusive particularly
interesting and pertinent.
idea of individuality and oneness not being exclusive particularly
interesting and pertinent.
Giga
May 20, 2012, 6:31:07 AM5/20/12
to
"Jack McKinney" <jak...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4608-4FB...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
post (leave my own personal existence out of this for the moment)?
Giga
May 20, 2012, 6:36:29 AM5/20/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
>>>> That could be right, in which case it is not only an attempt to avoid
>>>> negative things (like aloneness etc) but also to actively pursue
>>>> positive
>>>> things (like fun). At which point it becomes quite difficult to explain
>>>> some
>>>> of the suffering 'I have been inflicting on myself'?
>>> Strength of character. As one copes with suffering they can become
>>> increasingly immune to the effects of suffering. Much of suffering comes
>>> simply from dysfunctional habits of thinking.
>> So 'I create' suffering in order to learn how to avoid suffering!?
> It is a part of the rich experience of life.
>
purpose. In this case to provide 'richness'? Something along the lines of
'you can't appreciate pleasure without at least a bit of pain'?
I have also split my personality into at least two parts. One part is what I
call my consciousness, and the other we can call the 'unconscious'?
Giga
May 20, 2012, 6:37:23 AM5/20/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
Jack McKinney
May 20, 2012, 10:51:22 AM5/20/12
to
On Sun, May 20, 2012, 11:31am (CDT+6) From: just...@yahoo.co (Giga)
wrote:
> So you did create your post. What you
> are claiming is you also created my post
> (leave my own personal existence out of
> this for the moment)?
You are still dreaming. You're trying to box me in with Aristotlian two
sided logic, and that will not happen; I am a Seth reader, and there is
always a way out of the box... DREAM ON !
But let us try this analogy; I call it an analogy but there is a
profound truth behind it.... Think of life as a dream, and in this dream
you are involved in a lively discussion with someone who has a different
point of view from yours...
Now all of the back and forth dialogue that takes place in this debate
.. both pro and con is the result of your _own_ creativity. In other
words your debating opponent is being created by you, as well as
everything that he says...
Each one of us is involved in his own dream of being alive, and every
single event that takes place within your dream is ALL YOU, there is no
other...
WARNING, I AM A SETH READER...
wrote:
> So you did create your post. What you
> are claiming is you also created my post
> (leave my own personal existence out of
> this for the moment)?
sided logic, and that will not happen; I am a Seth reader, and there is
always a way out of the box... DREAM ON !
But let us try this analogy; I call it an analogy but there is a
profound truth behind it.... Think of life as a dream, and in this dream
you are involved in a lively discussion with someone who has a different
point of view from yours...
Now all of the back and forth dialogue that takes place in this debate
.. both pro and con is the result of your _own_ creativity. In other
words your debating opponent is being created by you, as well as
everything that he says...
Each one of us is involved in his own dream of being alive, and every
single event that takes place within your dream is ALL YOU, there is no
other...
WARNING, I AM A SETH READER...
Giga
May 20, 2012, 11:37:09 AM5/20/12
to
news:22777-4FB...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
claimed that in fact you created your post. Have I got that wrong?
>
> But let us try this analogy; I call it an analogy but there is a
> profound truth behind it.... Think of life as a dream, and in this dream
> you are involved in a lively discussion with someone who has a different
> point of view from yours...
>
> Now all of the back and forth dialogue that takes place in this debate
> .. both pro and con is the result of your _own_ creativity. In other
> words your debating opponent is being created by you, as well as
> everything that he says...
>
> Each one of us is involved in his own dream of being alive, and every
> single event that takes place within your dream is ALL YOU, there is no
> other...
So now you are going back to the position, it seems to me, that I am
creating your posts! Is that right?
>
> WARNING, I AM A SETH READER...
>
Is it unfair to ask you whether you wrote your own posts or not? Is that
trickery?
> On Sun, May 20, 2012, 11:31am (CDT+6) From: just...@yahoo.co (Giga)
> wrote:
>
>> So you did create your post. What you
>> are claiming is you also created my post
>> (leave my own personal existence out of
>> this for the moment)?
>
> You are still dreaming. You're trying to box me in with Aristotlian two
> sided logic, and that will not happen; I am a Seth reader, and there is
> always a way out of the box... DREAM ON !
Initially you seemed to imply that *I* had created your post. Then you
> wrote:
>
>> So you did create your post. What you
>> are claiming is you also created my post
>> (leave my own personal existence out of
>> this for the moment)?
>
> You are still dreaming. You're trying to box me in with Aristotlian two
> sided logic, and that will not happen; I am a Seth reader, and there is
> always a way out of the box... DREAM ON !
claimed that in fact you created your post. Have I got that wrong?
>
> But let us try this analogy; I call it an analogy but there is a
> profound truth behind it.... Think of life as a dream, and in this dream
> you are involved in a lively discussion with someone who has a different
> point of view from yours...
>
> Now all of the back and forth dialogue that takes place in this debate
> .. both pro and con is the result of your _own_ creativity. In other
> words your debating opponent is being created by you, as well as
> everything that he says...
>
> Each one of us is involved in his own dream of being alive, and every
> single event that takes place within your dream is ALL YOU, there is no
> other...
creating your posts! Is that right?
>
> WARNING, I AM A SETH READER...
>
trickery?
Peter Olcott
May 20, 2012, 12:20:35 PM5/20/12
to
comprehension that this can be known to be true. After this, then we can
build this comprehension. The *only* possible correct certainty
(presumption is incorrect certainty) is through comprehension and *not*
through belief or disbelief.
Jack McKinney
May 20, 2012, 12:49:59 PM5/20/12
to
On Sun, May 20, 2012, 4:37pm (CDT+6) From: just...@yahoo.co (Giga)
wrote;
> Is it unfair to ask you whether you wrote
> your own posts or not? Is that trickery?
Oh, I see now, you don't get it; that is to say that you don't
understand what I am saying... So let's try another analogy: this may
sound weird, but it _may_ shed some light on the subject...
Let's say that we came to an agreement that we would each have a dream
about debating each other on the nature of reality. What I am saying is
this: all of the dialogue and events that take place in your dream is
being created by you, and you alone. And all of the dialogue and events
that take place in my dream is being created by me, and me alone...
It is my belief that this is a truer representation of the nature of
reality...
wrote;
> Is it unfair to ask you whether you wrote
> your own posts or not? Is that trickery?
understand what I am saying... So let's try another analogy: this may
sound weird, but it _may_ shed some light on the subject...
Let's say that we came to an agreement that we would each have a dream
about debating each other on the nature of reality. What I am saying is
this: all of the dialogue and events that take place in your dream is
being created by you, and you alone. And all of the dialogue and events
that take place in my dream is being created by me, and me alone...
It is my belief that this is a truer representation of the nature of
reality...
Peter Olcott
May 20, 2012, 12:52:44 PM5/20/12
to
only a single living being within the universe. A being such as this
would likely not be aptly described as a human, even if this being is
manifest as a human.
> However in the
> philosophy you are discussing the individual human is really an expression
> of a greater entity, as are other human beings and the whole world. I would
> argue that just because an individual human being is an expression of a
> greater entity does not mean they are any *less* an individual human being
existing, are erroneous - these terms are merely figures of speech.
It would seem that the conventional meaning of Solipsism is the only way
to take this literally.
Peter Olcott
May 20, 2012, 12:59:59 PM5/20/12
to
difference points toward solipsism rather than pointing away from it.
It is very difficult to see this discernible difference because there
are very many very convincing discernible differences that seem to point
away from solipsism.
>> How does one tell the difference between a fake ten dollar bill and a
>> genuine ten dollar bill when the fake is a perfect fake with no
>> differences existing.
>>
> This is probably an unfair hypothetical. The stipulation 'no differences' is
> invalid because if there were no differences then the bill would have been
> produced by the relevant authorized authority using the usual methods and
> materials and under the proper procedures. In which case it would not be a
> fake.
>
Peter Olcott
May 20, 2012, 1:01:47 PM5/20/12
to
Peter Olcott
May 20, 2012, 1:02:43 PM5/20/12
to
to solipsism.
Giga
May 20, 2012, 2:48:48 PM5/20/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
>>>> So what, it was 'common knowledge' that the sun went round the Earth at
>>>> one
>>>> time. You are surely not going to appeal to that fallacy!? Well you
>>>> did.
>>>>
>>> I comprehend why it must be true, and can not be false.
>> Your own individual perception is even less convincing I'm afraid, by
>> itself.
>>
>>
> Yes, I know that, yet try to accept the possibility that it is by
> comprehension that this can be known to be true. After this, then we can
> build this comprehension. The *only* possible correct certainty
> (presumption is incorrect certainty) is through comprehension and *not*
> through belief or disbelief.
I'm not sure what you mean. Is it, in my own words, that it is only by some
>>>> one
>>>> time. You are surely not going to appeal to that fallacy!? Well you
>>>> did.
>>>>
>>> I comprehend why it must be true, and can not be false.
>> Your own individual perception is even less convincing I'm afraid, by
>> itself.
>>
>>
> Yes, I know that, yet try to accept the possibility that it is by
> comprehension that this can be known to be true. After this, then we can
> build this comprehension. The *only* possible correct certainty
> (presumption is incorrect certainty) is through comprehension and *not*
> through belief or disbelief.
personal experience that this truth can be known?
Giga
May 20, 2012, 2:52:38 PM5/20/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
beings just on this planet? And all the other stuff on this planet? Maybe
the stars? Other planets? ETs?
>
>> However in the
>> philosophy you are discussing the individual human is really an
>> expression
>> of a greater entity, as are other human beings and the whole world. I
>> would
>> argue that just because an individual human being is an expression of a
>> greater entity does not mean they are any *less* an individual human
>> being
> the World-honored One declares that separate individuality, as really
> existing, are erroneous - these terms are merely figures of speech.
>
> It would seem that the conventional meaning of Solipsism is the only way
> to take this literally.
Giga
May 20, 2012, 2:56:49 PM5/20/12
to
news:24113-4FB...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
So you might be influencing my 'dream', say by the content of particular
posts I am perceiving?
posts I am perceiving?
Giga
May 20, 2012, 2:59:08 PM5/20/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
>>>>> An Alarm clock?
>>>> But if solipsism is true then alarm clocks do not exist independent of
>>>> my
>>>> consciousness?
>>>>
>>> There are degrees of subconsciousness, too.
>> OK. That opens up a whole new area I would say. So in 'creating' this
>> world
>> I have also split my personality into at least two parts. One part is
>> what I
>> call my consciousness, and the other we can call the 'unconscious'?
>>
> That is what DT Suzuki called the Self.
Giga
May 20, 2012, 3:10:00 PM5/20/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
>>>> So you sometimes experience this sense of Monism?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes and it is sometimes the solipsist kind.
>> And the other times?
>>
> It could possibly be explained by conceptions including but not limited to
> solipsism.
world (Osho was my initial contact with this kind of idea). What seemed to
be an experience of the world in a very direct unmediated (by concepts,
judgement) way. Everything appeared extra real, coloured, energised, full of
love, incredibly real, shockingly surprising real. Words of course can only
point a bit at what I mean. There was certainly a feeling of connection with
everything, unity, as well. Since then I studied psychology and found out
that science says we actually simulate the world. Data is collected by the
senses and then it is somehow assembled into a simulation which is what
consciousness is aware of. So of course this might feel like 'I' create the
world. The truth is I create a simulation based on reality (from a
scientific pov). Of course it is unified and monistic, it is an internal
simulation generated and unified by the brain. Do you see what I mean? This
might explain the sense of everything being full of love as well, self-love,
which is thought to be at the core of human psychology. The technical phrase
that might explain a lot of the feeling associatred with all this is
ego-boundary-collapse, a kind of regression to an infantile sense of
omnipotense and omnipresence.
Peter Olcott
May 20, 2012, 10:02:20 PM5/20/12
to
Not(Solipsism) and actual Not(Solipsism), then there is no difference to
be discerned.
Peter Olcott
May 20, 2012, 10:06:30 PM5/20/12
to
bodies that get their mind from the subconsciousness of this single human.
>>> However in the
>>> philosophy you are discussing the individual human is really an
>>> expression
>>> of a greater entity, as are other human beings and the whole world. I
>>> would
>>> argue that just because an individual human being is an expression of a
>>> greater entity does not mean they are any *less* an individual human
>>> being
>> the World-honored One declares that separate individuality, as really
>> existing, are erroneous - these terms are merely figures of speech.
>>
>> It would seem that the conventional meaning of Solipsism is the only way
>> to take this literally.
> So then you regard me as a figment of your imagination? : (
sort of figment.
Giga
May 21, 2012, 3:38:50 AM5/21/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
Giga
May 21, 2012, 3:45:34 AM5/21/12
to
"Peter Olcott" <OCR4Screen> wrote in message
>>>> I'm starting to think that I do not know the correct word for what you
>>>> are
>>>> putting forward. But anyway it is not solipsism. Solipsism is the
>>>> belief
>>>> that the individual human is the only existent real entity.
>>> What I am saying is that it seems to be the case that there is really
>>> only
>>> a single living being within the universe. A being such as this would
>>> likely not be aptly described as a human, even if this being is manifest
>>> as a human.
>> 'as *a* human*' as single human? Or as billions, and billions of other
>> beings just on this planet? And all the other stuff on this planet? Maybe
>> the stars? Other planets? ETs?
> My current theory is that God is manifest as a single human with many
> bodies that get their mind from the subconsciousness of this single human.
>
that the conventional meaning of Solipsism is the only way
>>> to take this literally.
>> So then you regard me as a figment of your imagination? : (
> No more than anyone else, my own physical body would also be this same
> sort of figment.
>
That is quite strange, to be considered unreal. Have you read any great
>>> to take this literally.
>> So then you regard me as a figment of your imagination? : (
> No more than anyone else, my own physical body would also be this same
> sort of figment.
>
literature? Do you think you wrote that?
Jack McKinney
May 21, 2012, 5:04:53 AM5/21/12
to
On Sun, May 20, 2012, 7:56pm (CDT+6) From: just...@yahoo.co (Giga)
wrote:
> So you might be influencing my 'dream',
> say by the content of particular posts I
> am perceiving?
So that there is no confusion, a better way of saying that is this: You
are definitely influenced by the content of the particular scrips that
you are creating for me to say, within your dream... Once again, in your
dream, you are the creator of both sides of the dialogue....you appear
to be going out of your way to be confused; and although you may suceed
in confusing yourself, you will not confuse me !
The Buddha said life is but a dream, and all of the scripts, even the
great works of art that you perceive while in your dream, are all the
result of your own creativity....
THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH...
wrote:
> So you might be influencing my 'dream',
> say by the content of particular posts I
> am perceiving?
are definitely influenced by the content of the particular scrips that
you are creating for me to say, within your dream... Once again, in your
dream, you are the creator of both sides of the dialogue....you appear
to be going out of your way to be confused; and although you may suceed
in confusing yourself, you will not confuse me !
The Buddha said life is but a dream, and all of the scripts, even the
great works of art that you perceive while in your dream, are all the
result of your own creativity....
THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH...
Giga
May 21, 2012, 6:18:20 AM5/21/12
to
news:22778-4FB...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>Once again, in your
> dream, you are the creator of both sides of the dialogue....you appear
> to be going out of your way to be confused; and although you may suceed
> in confusing yourself, you will not confuse me !
>
I am genuinely finding it very confusing. Sometimes you claim you are making
your posts and sometimes you claim I am making your posts. Now you seem to
have gone for a half-way position where you make your posts but I decide
what the content is going to be. Are you surprised I am not sure what you
are arguing. You don't seem sure yourself : )
>
> The Buddha said life is but a dream, and all of the scripts, even the
> great works of art that you perceive while in your dream, are all the
> result of your own creativity....
So I put the words into Socrates' head even before I was born? And Jesus?
Wow what a brilliant philosopher I must be! And Jane Austen's books were all
written by me really with all that delightful language and humour, or Leo
Tolstoy's War and Peace, all by me! Not only that but all the great music,
film, humour, poetry, photography, journalism, every piece of art I've ever
seen, all this was produced by me? And all these theories about science and
psychology. All the worlds languages, especially the few I vaguely
understand and seem to have opened up new ways to see the world, all my
invention? All the thousands of dishes, drinks and cultural delights of the
countries I have visited? Every wonderful insight or thought that anyone has
ever shared with me, all me! Even this quote from Buddha is really from me!?
Is that really what you are claiming, or should I say, for yourself?
>
> THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH...
>
Why the shouting? You seem to be angry and very defensive. Why not not just
run away into your solipsist illusion if reality is disturbing you?
> On Sun, May 20, 2012, 7:56pm (CDT+6) From: just...@yahoo.co (Giga)
> wrote:
>
>> So you might be influencing my 'dream',
>> say by the content of particular posts I
>> am perceiving?
>
> So that there is no confusion, a better way of saying that is this: You
> are definitely influenced by the content of the particular scrips that
> you are creating for me to say, within your dream...
So you are posting but I am putting the content into your brain?
> wrote:
>
>> So you might be influencing my 'dream',
>> say by the content of particular posts I
>> am perceiving?
>
> So that there is no confusion, a better way of saying that is this: You
> are definitely influenced by the content of the particular scrips that
> you are creating for me to say, within your dream...
>Once again, in your
> dream, you are the creator of both sides of the dialogue....you appear
> to be going out of your way to be confused; and although you may suceed
> in confusing yourself, you will not confuse me !
>
your posts and sometimes you claim I am making your posts. Now you seem to
have gone for a half-way position where you make your posts but I decide
what the content is going to be. Are you surprised I am not sure what you
are arguing. You don't seem sure yourself : )
>
> The Buddha said life is but a dream, and all of the scripts, even the
> great works of art that you perceive while in your dream, are all the
> result of your own creativity....
Wow what a brilliant philosopher I must be! And Jane Austen's books were all
written by me really with all that delightful language and humour, or Leo
Tolstoy's War and Peace, all by me! Not only that but all the great music,
film, humour, poetry, photography, journalism, every piece of art I've ever
seen, all this was produced by me? And all these theories about science and
psychology. All the worlds languages, especially the few I vaguely
understand and seem to have opened up new ways to see the world, all my
invention? All the thousands of dishes, drinks and cultural delights of the
countries I have visited? Every wonderful insight or thought that anyone has
ever shared with me, all me! Even this quote from Buddha is really from me!?
Is that really what you are claiming, or should I say, for yourself?
>
> THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH...
>
Why the shouting? You seem to be angry and very defensive. Why not not just
run away into your solipsist illusion if reality is disturbing you?
Jack McKinney
May 21, 2012, 7:32:39 AM5/21/12
to
To Gina:
I am beginning to see the light now; either you are incapable of
understanding what I am saying, or you are deliberately trying to
misunderstand what I am saying....either way it's best to end this
discussion...
btw: on my web pages I don't use caps because I am angry, I use caps as
an artistic expression.. I am more prone to use caps when I am in a
creative mood; and as a rule I DON'T GET ANGRY...
I DON'T BUY INTO THAT CRAP !
As I type this response, I have a smile on my face, not a frown; don't
you remember, I am a Seth reader, and as the creator of my own reality I
find that I giggle a lot; anger, and frowning are almost totally foreign
to me, so is confusion, for that is reserved primarily for people who
don't create their own reality..
CHEERS, AND HAVE A GOOD DAY !!!
I am beginning to see the light now; either you are incapable of
understanding what I am saying, or you are deliberately trying to
misunderstand what I am saying....either way it's best to end this
discussion...
btw: on my web pages I don't use caps because I am angry, I use caps as
an artistic expression.. I am more prone to use caps when I am in a
creative mood; and as a rule I DON'T GET ANGRY...
I DON'T BUY INTO THAT CRAP !
As I type this response, I have a smile on my face, not a frown; don't
you remember, I am a Seth reader, and as the creator of my own reality I
find that I giggle a lot; anger, and frowning are almost totally foreign
to me, so is confusion, for that is reserved primarily for people who
don't create their own reality..
CHEERS, AND HAVE A GOOD DAY !!!
Giga
May 21, 2012, 9:00:56 AM5/21/12
to
news:22779-4F...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
> To Gina:
A gin?
>
> I am beginning to see the light now; either you are incapable of
> understanding what I am saying, or you are deliberately trying to
> misunderstand what I am saying....either way it's best to end this
> discussion...
Did it occur to you that there is another possibility. You are talking
nonsense.
>
> btw: on my web pages I don't use caps because I am angry, I use caps as
> an artistic expression.. I am more prone to use caps when I am in a
> creative mood; and as a rule I DON'T GET ANGRY...
On Usenet it is shouting.
>
> I DON'T BUY INTO THAT CRAP !
>
> As I type this response, I have a smile on my face, not a frown; don't
> you remember, I am a Seth reader, and as the creator of my own reality I
> find that I giggle a lot; anger, and frowning are almost totally foreign
> to me, so is confusion, for that is reserved primarily for people who
> don't create their own reality..
Personally I detect a lot of anger, confusion and frustration in your posts.
Also this constant self-labelling as a 'Seth-reader' as if the mere fact you
can read should engender a deep respect for your opinions is a bit odd.
>
> CHEERS, AND HAVE A GOOD DAY !!!
>
And three exclamations marks, what does that denote in your world?
> To Gina:
A gin?
>
> I am beginning to see the light now; either you are incapable of
> understanding what I am saying, or you are deliberately trying to
> misunderstand what I am saying....either way it's best to end this
> discussion...
nonsense.
>
> btw: on my web pages I don't use caps because I am angry, I use caps as
> an artistic expression.. I am more prone to use caps when I am in a
> creative mood; and as a rule I DON'T GET ANGRY...
>
> I DON'T BUY INTO THAT CRAP !
>
> As I type this response, I have a smile on my face, not a frown; don't
> you remember, I am a Seth reader, and as the creator of my own reality I
> find that I giggle a lot; anger, and frowning are almost totally foreign
> to me, so is confusion, for that is reserved primarily for people who
> don't create their own reality..
Also this constant self-labelling as a 'Seth-reader' as if the mere fact you
can read should engender a deep respect for your opinions is a bit odd.
>
> CHEERS, AND HAVE A GOOD DAY !!!
>
Jack McKinney
May 21, 2012, 10:01:09 AM5/21/12
to
To Giga:
I'm a kidder, and like I said, I giggle a lot...
A lot of my comments and posting habits, are designed to bug the hell
out of NITPICKERS....
Looks like I'm being successful !!!
Nothing just is, particularly with a SETH READER, there is a method to
my madness.... BEWARE !!!
I'm a kidder, and like I said, I giggle a lot...
A lot of my comments and posting habits, are designed to bug the hell
out of NITPICKERS....
Looks like I'm being successful !!!
Nothing just is, particularly with a SETH READER, there is a method to
my madness.... BEWARE !!!
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages