Oh well. To me, as an observer, the situation here is this: Arfa Brane is engaging in a conversation he'd rather not have; pulling the other conversationalist toward himself with one arm, while pushing him away with the other arm. A case of communicating while refusing to do so.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
You put your god in a box everytime you refer to it as "He". It is a flaw in humanity that it gives reality to the supernatural.
For anyone else bothering to read this: I've been "engaging" with lightgigantic because I perceive that he/she is someone who has a quite fixed idea of what God "should be like". For instance, his objection to my claim has basically been: "If you say you are God, you have to prove it. Or at least offer some kind of description." But I've used ordinary experience (seeing, hearing) as my description. Apparently, lg believes What?? How could anyone possibly know that? Then the example of an invisible picture . . . Some sort of attempt at reductio ad absurdum, or perhaps just ridicule. My conclusion is that lg thinks seeing and hearing are ridiculous or absurd. This is lg's attempt to reassure himself (somehow), that the meanings he attributes to certain words are the only true ones. And still no attempt at answering a fairly simple question: How do you distinguish between what you are and what you experience? Is there something wrong with this question? Is it a "trick" question? Here's another one: Suppose there is a person somewhere on the planet who has never heard or read the word "God". Can that person experience God, or is that only possible once they know what the "standard definition" is? Does the question seem a little ridiculous? Suppose the person does experience God, and realises that that is "what they really are"? Do they now have "a position of employment" much like the president of the US, or a dentist? I'm trying hard to not shake with laughter as I type this.
Welcome to the real world. Where people want you to prove you are what you claim to be. Whether you claim to be a dentist, a car mechanic, the president of the US, or God, or whichever. :shrug: Sure, along with the monumental expectation that people should just submit to your way of seeing things and unconditionally believe you whatever you say (along with submissively accepting whatever implications doing so may have for them).
You mean, "Welcome to the individualistic world, where, since everyone is an individual, everyone wants every individual to prove they are what they claim to be, even if they don't claim to be anything.". That's your interpretation of it. I don't care if you or anyone else interprets what I've said whichever way they want to. It doesn't matter. I haven't asked or implied that anyone "submit" to anything. Actually I've said, more or less, that you have no obligation to believe things someone wrote in a book, or told you. You don't have to believe me either. Whether you do or don't, I don't actually care. I'm just "throwing ideas around", see if they stick to something. Y'know.
Given that you say you are god and that everyone else is too, exactly who "else" are you referring to? You are getting ahead of yourself. Before one can talk of proof one must first have some sort of outline of definitions for what is under scrutiny. Otherwise you could just show a framed picture of an antelope as evidence of having smelled a rose. sense activities always exist in relation to a sense object(s) (even if we are talking about the mind's capacity to fabricate/reenact sensory experiences). OK so you say you have had the experience of seeing/hearing something that made you know you are god. The next obvious questions are what is it that you saw/heard and what was it about these experiences that confirmed that you are god (and had merely forgotten this somewhat important fact)? A dozen or so posts later and there is still nothing forthcoming from you ..... :shrug: It shows how, after negating whatever relationship ordinarily exists between the senses and the sense objects, one can use it as a blank canvas to say it is a picture (albeit an invisible one) of absolutely anything one imagines. Along similar lines, you can say you are aldolph hitler, jesus, a giraffe or all three (or anything else you imagine) based on what you have seen and heard for as long as you hotly deny (or alternatively, shroud in a cloud of vagueness) the relationship these said personages draw between the senses and their objects ("meh .... its only your book definition that a giraffe has an incredibly long neck ...") for as long as one insists on discussing them outside of/divorced from/bearing no relationship to their associated sense objects, it is impossible for them to be anything but absurd :shrug: . will the irony never end? As I said before, if you can't/won't say what you are and you can't/won't establish your experience in terms of the senses and the sense objects, all you are exercising is your imagination (which is, no doubt, the major muscle a solipsist utilizes) If they are defeated by tooth aches and the like and can't establish their experience of "god" in any meaningful manner in contrast to when they didn't know such things I think they would be hard pressed to establish that they had any sort of experience at all .... or if they did, it certainly wasn't the experience of being god (outside of the linguistic hyperbole associated with cocaine use etc) assuming we are going by the book definitions of presidents holding some nationally appointed honorific position of power and a dentist being in some shape or form knowledgeable of practical medical issues of the teeth and gums, then yes, of course ..... but maybe that's being a bit exclusive with semiotics, huh? I'm trying to limit my use of: :shrug: 's
Given that I'm a solipsist, "everyone else" is all the other minds outside my own, which are all of course subjective figments of that mind. Ok, then I won't talk of proof. What I saw and heard, and continue to see and hear, is, as mentioned, entirely subjective. What it was "about" the experience that confirmed anything, was that it confirmed my existence, and at the same time confirmed that descriptions and ideas weren't at all necessary. What I had forgotten was that forgetting all the ideas isn't a problem, the problem is forgetting that experience is all that really matters. I don't follow how you get this conclusion. If you can see (if your eyes are working "normally") then you see what's in front of you. Do you mean to say, if I claim to be able to see things, I'm divorcing this from some "associated sense object", because I haven't named any of the "things"? And you're saying you can say what you are, and that you can establish your experience "in terms of the senses and sense objects"? Whereas all I've been saying is "I can see"? So I'm imagining seeing "things" with my "eyes", you say? Whereas, God does not get toothache, or the like? Suppose the "meaningful manner" in which they "establish the experience" involves them not saying anything about it? Not a word to anyone? Not sure, but I'll take that to mean a guarded "yes". So if you know you are God, then you also know God has a "job", like the president, or a dentist or whatever. Ok, but maybe they don't. How do you know which is the "true calling"? Who should you ask?
lol glad you cleared that up for us ... or rather perhaps I should say glad you cleared that up for yourself :scratchin: Without beginning with definitions it wasn't even possible for you to start on that topic :shrug:
Given that you do take issue with some posters here, then, clearly, it does matter to you how people interpret what you say. Otherwise you wouldn't be having this page-long discussion with LG, for example - for the simple reason that you simply would not care, it would not matter to you. And you think that's a productive attitude to communication?
Or maybe I'm just making various statements to see how different people handle it. What, you mean, should I care if people understand what I'm saying? The thing with that is, I understand exactly what I've been saying, and no, I don't see that caring about whether or not you do is important. If you're trying to communicate, then yes, often it's important to make others understand you, it depends on the circumstances, and I don't see any compelling ones here.
Translation: what sense objects did you encounter with your senses ? you can't tell us. how does this experience qualify for use of the word God IYHO? you can't tell us. :shrug: So what did you see in front of you and what made you think that experience was sufficient to grant you the status of god? If you are arguing that your experience on what you saw or heard plays an integral role in what you are (or what you advocate you are), eg : I had this experience of seeing/hearing that gave me the knowledge I am god - sure, most definitely. so does a 6 year old ... although they display better skills than yourself at explaining their identities based on their experiences of seeing Delusion occurs through the medium of the mind as opposed to the eyeballs or whatever Being a nazi jesus giraffe works by the same uncanny mystique ..... psychotropic drug users also tend to keep a low profile too .... since a lot of the times their activities are illegal (and the last thing a god wants to do is find himself busted by the narcs)
You can "most definitely" say what you are, and that you can establish your experience "in terms of the senses and sense objects"? But that's only to yourself, obviously, as you haven't so far supplied anything approaching an explanation that anyone else can understand. Whereas I admit, I have no intention of trying to supply any such "explanation". And no, I don't care about whether you understand what I've been trying to say, nor do I care about your opinions of it. It might be easier for you to believe that I do care, But I don't, really, so please don't worry about that. But again, of course you're free to conjure up any helpful images (broken arsed hippie, drug crazed pre-psychotic idiot, etc, whatever). Knock yourself out.
Sure. Well you did just say "I had the hearing/seeing experiences of x which gave me the knowledge that I am y". If you can't define the x and y of above outside of solipsistic nonsense, you haven't supplied an explanation approaching anything anyone remotely cares about . then I guess you will have to discover new ways to satisfy your nonsense rather than trolling discussion forums :shrug: I'm just working with whatever little information you have the courage to supply "We've been using mind-altering substances for a long time, and many cultures have rites of passage that involve the use of such "magic", and the notion of a communion with something." :shrug:
What about YOU? What can YOU say that anyone cares about? Can YOU distinguish between what YOU are and what YOU experience? How many times does someone have to present YOU with a question before it occurs to YOU that YOU haven't supplied anything beyond YOUR own personal (solipsist) view of "how thinga should be, because I say so"? Who are YOU to question MY point of view? You don't know, do you? I see your answer to my nth posting of this very question gets as far as "Sure". What, that's your answer? No, you're working with a set of preconceptions, and reading things into what I've said, how "courageous" I am, etc. Perhaps you need to do this as some kind of coping mechanism. All I had to do was mention an historical fact--humans have been taking drugs for thousands of years. This is something you appear to have latched onto and attempted to use to "destroy" my argument. But this is only in your mind. In reality, I don't give a shit. But logically, if you ask someone a question n times, and they don't answer it n times, but instead respond with "you said . . ." How can that be an answer? If that's all you got, you got no answer it seems. I really think you don't have one, and you can't answer because you don't even seem to recognise the question is directed at YOU, not back at who asked it. Maybe you're crazy?
More than you since I never engage in discussions on the authority of solipsism. Sure there's a distinction, but unlike you it is not a distinction limited by imagination since I don't draw on a solipsistic sense of selfhood or experience How many times does someone have to press the sore points in your statements for you to realize you have more dire issues at home? On the contrary, far from not knowing, I would say its the cornerstone of sanity. The fact that its missing from your world view is of concern. You are the one who introduced the topic of psychotropic drug using working parallel with the conclusions you are trying to present. They have also been eating rice for that long too ... yet in the discussion of your points you choose to include some historical facts over others :shrug: By asking that question you are trying to show how my answer shares a parallel to your answer. While I can answer that question, I am simply pointing out how you lack the assets to answer it in a meaningful manner (since you can't meaningfully establish your self - since you say you are god - or your experience of hearing/seeing that granted this so-called exulted status). IOW you could define a broad spectrum of individuals suffering from mental illness by their inability to negotiate problems surrounding their self and their experience ... which is the very model for the argument you are presenting.
Am I? I was fairly sure I was just asking you a question. And here we are, or rather, there you are. If you can answer it, then do so, or admit you can't. The rest of your post is meaningless in the face of no answer, or even any attempt, from you. I can "meaningfully" establish the truth of what I've said. But I can't do this with the same "meaningfulness" if I try to express it in words. I also know that there is no compunction, no obligation to do so for the benefit of any others. Really, my experience is mine, it isn't yours. But I don't have to do that, there are plenty of individuals here who will do quite nicely; no definitions required. Just the usual panoply of individualists who feel they "need" to believe something, and tell everyone about it, then fail spectacularly at doing so.
yet you abruptly asked me this question while I was in the middle of asking similar questions of yourself (which you have failed to answer, I might add) What are you talking about. I just gave you an answer. I said i can make the distinction and I explained why you can't. I even said it was the cornerstone of sanity. if communication fails you, you can't meaningfully establish the truth or anything else of it. aside for presenting a discussion with intellectual integrity ...which admittedly isn't a big drawing card with solipsism but if you conclude that the experience grants you not only the status of god, but also the realization that everyone else is too, you have no good reason for clamming up yet you fail spectacularly nonetheless .... :shrug:
