sol·ip·sism (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy
1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.
Under the Law of One, is this not correct?
(07-09-2013, 09:30 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]sol·ip·sism (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy
1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.
Under the Law of One, is this not correct?
what's not correct under the Law of One again. Lol
Looking past that, doesn't the universe share only one mind in the end except with only illusions of separation?
I've wondered this a few times myself.
I can't yet see the escape, other than to reflect that when I first learned of solipsism, I had no capacity to imagine myself as connected to cosmic creation. I was thinking 'self' as my body/mind, not as a spiritual part of the creative thought.
The 'self' in the Law of One seems a term of unfathomable depth. Nonetheless, I think you are correct.
To be frank, when I was not introduced to The Law of One, I believed solipsism was correct but I was too embarassed to say it in public. It is an unfalsifiable philosophy and a good one for the ultimate skeptic. However, there are too many social implications for anyone to really preach it. Haha.
Anyways, if I were to give a name to the followers of The Law of One, I would call them Neo-Solipsists.
(07-10-2013, 01:33 AM)Jerome Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking 'self' as my body/mind, not as a spiritual part of the creative thought.
Well the mind/body doesn't really ever disappear.
You can think of the Logos as the mind and reality as the body.
Yay, words!
I think solipsism is a wonderful reality for those who wish to experience the perception of the self in such a way. I think it could be said that it is true, but the challenge comes, for me, when we apply that to every self. What is the real difference between saying the self is made of everything, and thus is quantified by the infinity of "everything" meaning energy throughout all forms, objects, creatures, minerals, atoms, etc, and that everything is made of the self?
The latter suggests that both self and other self are quantified in the same way. That everything has everything and is everything. So, in that regard, all selves are equal, however, even if you say it is just an infinite self of infinite forms, that stills means everything has to be something that is a part of the self.
I started deeply pondering this a few years back because I was trying to identify how objects retain their forms. This is how I came to the concept of a fractalized unified field of perception, like the Net of Indra or the Flower of Life.
Do I make everything stay as it, and make it as it is? Sure, some part of myself, but what I am currently concerned with and aware of is my conscious self. My conscious self observes, but I assure you I spend no time calculating the infinite functions required to attain a state of observation.
(07-10-2013, 03:20 AM)Tanner Wrote: [ -> ]Yay, words!
I think solipsism is a wonderful reality for those who wish to experience the perception of the self in such a way. I think it could be said that it is true, but the challenge comes, for me, when we apply that to every self. What is the real difference between saying the self is made of everything, and thus is quantified by the infinity of "everything" meaning energy throughout all forms, objects, creatures, minerals, atoms, etc, and that everything is made of the self?
The latter suggests that both self and other self are quantified in the same way. That everything has everything and is everything. So, in that regard, all selves are equal, however, even if you say it is just an infinite self of infinite forms, that stills means everything has to be something that is a part of the self.
I started deeply pondering this a few years back because I was trying to identify how objects retain their forms. This is how I came to the concept of a fractalized unified field of perception, like the Net of Indra or the Flower of Life.
Do I make everything stay as it, and make it as it is? Sure, some part of myself, but what I am currently concerned with and aware of is my conscious self. My conscious self observes, but I assure you I spend no time calculating the infinite functions required to attain a state of observation.
My brain just had a seizure reading that hehe. Reminds me of trying to learn paradiddles on the drum kit.
I love paradiddles! And double paradiddles...
(07-10-2013, 12:46 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Looking past that, doesn't the universe share only one mind in the end except with only illusions of separation?
Yes, but the concept of mind is an expression of separation.
(07-10-2013, 10:53 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013, 12:46 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Looking past that, doesn't the universe share only one mind in the end except with only illusions of separation?
Yes, but the concept of mind is an expression of separation.
Well, such is the nature of the multiverse?
(07-10-2013, 10:56 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013, 10:54 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]Well, such is the nature of the multiverse?
What multiverse?
The numerous octaves spanning across infinity.