just3another3normal3person
-
The universe is in dissonance—it causes innegligble flaws and errors in all things, which results in disagreement and conflict.
Harmony consists of negligible flaws and errors.
Perfection has no flaws and errors—none.
Perfection is redundant, harmony is perfect enough.
The universe demonstrate cycles, which seems to convey recyclement, reincarnation, and reconnection.
The universe is governed by mathematical destiny.
-
-
@gg12 said in just3another3normal3person:
The universe is governed by mathematical destiny.
Computer says lol.
Harmony consists of negligible flaws and errors.
innegligble
?
just3another3normal3person
Edgy.
@ThinPicking said in Tell me your opinion on the covid vaxx:
go running or swimming a few times
You should do this as soon as possible.
-
Yeah, good ol Hegel + Engels + Carl Schmitt
Everything is Developing All the Time.
-
i like turtles
-
you're a great zombie
-
Consciousness is the only given. All else is representation. The universe, destiny, harmony, perfection—these are not discovered but constituted. They arise as expressions within the undivided field of experience. Nothing about their structure permits inference to a world beyond, behind, or beneath consciousness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1HaSlhQTqk&t=795s -
@Nomanarch Solipsism is a "logically valid" worldview, making no assumptions outside what can be said on paper, but accomplishes nothing in the real world. This alone is good reason to discard it. Solipsists cannot use ballistic calculations to destroy the enemy's real position without betraying their own philosophical one. It is basically the result of alienation from active/working life.
If you care to read, Lenin destroys this philosophical position further in "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism", "Empirio-Criticism" being the articulation of this solipsism in 1909.
-
@Rah1woot Transcendental Solipsism is not a guide for engineering, warfare, or agriculture—it is a limiting condition on metaphysical claims, not a method of manipulating appearances. Ballistics does not refute solipsism; it merely shows that the dream is internally coherent. TS makes no existential judgments about how one feels or lives—it simply withholds metaphysical commitment beyond what is immanently given in consciousness. To demand “real-world application” is to confuse epistemic critique with pragmatic utility. Lenin, in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, substitutes political necessity for philosophical justification, mistaking ideological usefulness for epistemic legitimacy—a move that confirms, rather than refutes, the solipsist's suspension of belief.
-
@Nomanarch If you admit that solipsism has no utility for developing the future (i.e., for the life process), then I think that you agree with me and we're done here.
Ballistics does not refute solipsism; it merely shows that the dream is internally coherent.
Like all "solipsists" you basically have to go to coded objective materialism whenever you have to do anything in the real world or reason about it. "The dream, singular". With one dreamer who is necessarily not you. Every time. It's the basic life function.
Again. Solipsism isn't logically wrong. On paper it is completely correct. It's a myopic, constipated fixation on one aspect of living that impoverishes life. Its logical rectitude is exactly what produces its real infertility. Much like "nihilism" it is a perspective refuted by life itself.
-
@gg12 said in just3another3normal3person:
The universe is in dissonance—it causes innegligble flaws and errors in all things, which results in disagreement and conflict.
On a smaller scale there are things to be observed that are unpleasant. But when viewed as a whole, from a higher vantage point, the is universe is quite beautiful in the way everything works together. Perhaps it could be likened to a beautiful solution to a problem, or a beautiful equation.
There may be flaws in the universe in the sense that it isn't perfect, but I wouldn't say that they are flaws in the sense that they should be fixed. Only the One (perhaps you could call it God) that remains the same and contains everything within it, lacking nothing, is perfect.
Perfection is redundant, harmony is perfect enough.
Perfect enough for what purpose?
The universe is governed by mathematical destiny.
I wouldn't call it "mathematical destiny", neither would I say it's something that governs. But if something happened, then it couldn't have happened any other way.
@Rah1woot said in just3another3normal3person:
Everything is Developing All the Time.
Development is a form of change. But if everything changes, then what does? Assuming that nothing stays the same, that there's no unchanging foundation, then change would just be something disappearing and another thing appearing out of nothing. And, of course, nothing comes from nothing.
Development, unlike change, also implies advancement or growth. While this can happen at least to a degree in the world we perceive, there's no growth in the One. It's already whole and complete, and has nothing outside of itself to contribute to growth. Though this point is kind of redundant in the light of my previous point.
@Nomanarch said in just3another3normal3person:
Consciousness is the only given.
Consciousness changes all the time. And as I already mentioned to Rah1woot: for something to change, there must be something else to make that change possible.
By the way, awareness is an attribute of something else. It has no independent existence.
All else is representation.
Representation of what? For there to be representation, there must be something to be represented. This implies some forms beyond the world of representation.
Ballistics does not refute solipsism; it merely shows that the dream is internally coherent.
The coherency itself suggests a coherent structure beyond the scope of individual consciousness, especially since the coherency remains in the absence of awareness of it. Things can influence us without us being aware of it. And later, it's possible to figure out what was affecting us and to test it.
It's easier to claim that the only thing real in a dream world is oneself since dream content is determined by an individuals conscious and unconscious processes. The waking world functions differently from the dream world, as I'm sure you have noticed.
If we are to say that the mind can't grasp things outside of itself, then perhaps we could say that the mind "projects outwards" towards these external structures. And as it makes contact, then the change in the form of the mind is interpreted as the experiences we have.
I also see no reason why we couldn't attain direct knowledge that is not merely representation. Even though our individual consciousness isn't all there is, a part of us is still essentially one with the foundation of all existence. The One contains all there is. And as so, it seems possible to have direct understanding. But perhaps the part which can attain this kind of understanding is not the mind. Or maybe it is. It depends on our definitions which can vary from person to person, from theory to theory.
@Rah1woot @Nomanarch I haven't read any of the writings of the people Rah1woot mentioned, this is my first introduction to solipsism, and I don't read much philosophy in general. As such, it's entirely possible I misunderstood some terminology or ideas and therefore commentated on them incorrectly. If this is the case, then please clarify the terminology or ideas so I can learn and better address them, if there is anything left to be addressed.
-
@NoeticJuice Your critique of Transcendental Solipsism mistakenly assumes that experiential coherence and causal inference within consciousness necessitate the existence of a reality beyond it—an inference TS precisely suspends. Change, coherence, and representation are all features of the field of consciousness, not signs pointing to an external substrate; their intelligibility arises immanently, not via a hidden metaphysical ground. The claim that consciousness changes and therefore “there must be something else to make that change possible” simply imports a transcendent causal principle without justification—change is given, but the idea that it requires something other than consciousness is not. Similarly, to assert that awareness is an attribute of “something else” is to presuppose what is never given in experience—TS holds that consciousness is not encountered as an attribute, but as the condition of appearance itself. To ask "representation of what?" presupposes what is not given: TS holds that the thing represented is itself just another appearance within consciousness, not a pointer to an unknowable noumenon. Likewise, that experiences can be interpreted or predicted later does not imply they come from outside consciousness—it only shows the temporal self-cohering structure of consciousness itself. The appeal to a “One” or an external structure that the mind "projects toward" merely restates metaphysical realism without justification; TS, by contrast, offers the more restrained position—it acknowledges the given without projecting beyond it. Assertions about what must exist "beyond" simply go beyond what can be known.
-
@Nomanarch Thanks. Now I know that I understood the terminology and ideas sufficiently well.
Transcendental Solipsism denies logical necessities and is therefore impossible. It needs no further consideration, just another theory to discard.
-
@NoeticJuice That response begs the very question at issue. Transcendental Solipsism does not deny logical necessity; it denies the application of logical necessities to things beyond the bounds of experience. It accepts that within the field of consciousness, logic holds—appearances cohere, follow rules, and manifest structure. What it refuses is the illicit projection of those necessities onto a realm never given, such as a supposed external world or metaphysical substrate. To say TS "denies logic" is a category error—it uses logic to expose the unjustified metaphysical assumptions hidden in so-called “commonsense” realism. Dismissing it as “impossible” without refuting its core epistemic restraint is not a counterargument but a refusal to engage with the very distinction between what appears and what is merely posited. That is the very illusion TS is designed to reveal.
-
@Nomanarch I don't feel like wasting time and my very limited energy reserves, but I also don't want to be rude and ignore you. This is likely to be my last reply to you on this topic.
@NoeticJuice said in just3another3normal3person:
Assuming that nothing stays the same, that there's no unchanging foundation, then change would just be something disappearing and another thing appearing out of nothing. And, of course, nothing comes from nothing.
Based on what you wrote, TS claims that something appears from nothing. Also, claiming that awareness exists independently from that which is aware is a claim entirely detached from reality.
TS is impossible. But if you can't see beyond what is given, I don't think I can explain it to you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
-
@NoeticJuice Transcendental Solipsism doesn’t claim that something comes from nothing—it brackets the question of origins altogether. It does not posit metaphysical becoming or creation ex nihilo; it restricts itself to what is given: that appearances arise within consciousness. To say that this requires a stable substrate or foundation is itself a metaphysical assumption—one that TS suspends due to lack of epistemic warrant. The idea that "nothing comes from nothing" may be intuitive, but it extends the PSR beyond its valid domain. TS does not deny appearance, change, or coherence—it only denies that we are justified in positing what lies behind them.
-
@Nomanarch What is the content of your life? Do you do meaningful Work with/for other people? Any major life issues? I'm trying to see something.
@NoeticJuice Just because this guy correctly uses philosophical terminology doesn't mean his theory holds any water for actual living animals. Try being a solipsist while at the front, in a factory, working to feed your family. You will Fail, get Hurt, feel Pain, and Die. Put your hand on a hot stovetop and keep it there, just because "all experience is actually in the mind". You will lose your hand. Of course your real, objective nervous system will stop you if it's working correctly. While you're at it, you should also quit Peating, because all of those dietary choices are also irrelevant when all experience is in the mind alone. Just will yourself into feeling good, bro. Go to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Or you'll have some kind of confused mentality where you just encode the perspective of objective materialism in new words, like a "dream", as a kind of emotional safeguard. Much like a basement dweller's obsession with his fundamentally superior "IQ" (or "race", for some), the social purpose of solipsism is to grant defensibility to useless dysfunction. In this way the lumpenproletariat and financial bourgeoisie is united in stifling the development of reality.
It's not incurable, but it is anti-life.
-
@Rah1woot said in just3another3normal3person:
What is the content of your life? Do you do meaningful Work with/for other people? Any major life issues? I'm trying to see something.
Not relevant to the position but I will indulge. I don't really have any major life issues. I'm young and on the right track. Last year I finished my bachelor's, this year I was admitted into a highly competitive masters program to get a very practical career with a high barrier to entry. I enjoy hanging out with my gf and friends but I derive most of my enjoyment from philosophy and health. Without continually engaging in philosophy and health, I couldn't see myself deriving sole enjoyment from others (it's as if I have a daemon that continually propels me into doing such things). However I say this all pragmatically, I don't believe in differentiated meaning/distinctions.
Regarding the post below, this conflates pragmatic adaptation with epistemic justification, and in doing so, it fails to engage with what Transcendental Solipsism (TS) actually claims. TS does not deny that pain feels painful, that people work, or that bodies burn when exposed to flame—these are appearances within consciousness, and their regularity, intensity, and consequence are all acknowledged. What TS denies is that these appearances require the postulation of a metaphysically independent world behind them. The hand burns not “in spite of” solipsism, but within solipsism—because the structure of experience is coherent, lawful, and real as experience. There is no contradiction in feeling pain while affirming that pain is a modification of consciousness. What the critic describes—factories, war, hardship, heat, sensation—is not denied by TS but precisely what it affirms: experience is real, and all that is ever present is the presentation of a world within consciousness. The accusation that solipsism is a “basement-dweller’s ideology” is an ad hominem that ignores the central point: philosophical modesty in not affirming what cannot be known. TS doesn’t obstruct living—it simply refrains from making unjustified metaphysical claims about what causes, underlies, or exists beyond the stream of lived appearances. You can fight in war, raise a family, grieve, create art, and experience joy—all while recognizing that what you call “reality” is part of a self-consistent field of consciousness. TS is not a call to retreat from life—it’s a refusal to lie about what can be known.
-
@gg12 said in just3another3normal3person:
The universe is governed by mathematical destiny.
No, it's an idealistic, platonic view.
Ray didn't like Plato - and correctly criticised his views - like in the following article: https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/howdoyouknow.shtmlSome other people just think that Plato simply didn't have the balls to see/admit that the universe is always in motion - uncertain and volatile. Therefore, he invented static forms and ideas to calm his anxieties.
The universe is in a dynamic homeostasis - constantly changing and adapting.
BTW, our world isn't in our heads - it is in the interactions between our minds and matter...
https://social-epistemology.com/2024/12/04/towards-a-new-materialism-a-comment-on-armstrongs-life-mind-and-matter-victor-de-lorenzo/ -
Not relevant to the position
That would make sense if you think that formal abstract logic outside of concrete human life itself is possible, which is at the same time the position that produces solipsism. If we instead see perspectives as flowing through actual real people (or things), who can not always be taken at their word, it is quite relevant. But I can be happy you're mostly doing fine in either case. Rather than being a broken soldier, you just haven't been to war yet. Still in The Academy.
When you fall back to a "coherent dream" or "field of consciousness" to explain the apparent consistency (i.e., recurrence into the future from the present and past) with which experience occurs, all of this is really a coded, weak way of describing exactly what materialists know as "reality". You make mere acknowledgements, but unlike materialists, you make no assertions. And again, this is all well and good until you have to develop new weapons technology to destroy the enemy before they destroy you. While you might circle back and encapsulate everything that you've ALREADY seen, including the future-predictions of your past self, as part of a "field of consciousness", you will never be able to seriously work with the future in each instant. Since you have not experienced it yet, you can say exactly nothing about it. Thus it is an inherently reactionary, past-oriented pattern of thought. The religious monotheistic concept of "faith" is exactly this faith in the thing outside which produces the future: it is a perspective that takes great energy, a certain configuration of the brain, and it is something that can waver with the constitution and spirit. There is no formal justification for faith, and yet, it is impossible to be alive without. The present configures the future. The Pilot Wave Theory demolishes the Copenhagen Interpretation. Solipsism does not offer any explanation for why even though materialism is never actually justified in each individual instant, it has always won in the past.
Ray Peat's quote on the topic: https://bioenergetic.life/clips/3aec8?t=5347&c=100
