The Construct of Reality - Solipsism Redefined

[Orias]

I just couldn't resist...

Solipsism is dangerous, yet most people assume or attempt to rectify the perception of self by posturing the idea to pertaining strictly to the individual premise of "I", which commonly excludes the collective whole.

But what if solipsism could define the collective whole on an individual premise, that is not exclusive of the human consciousness? In other words, what if solipsism is not a posture taken on my some and denied by others, but consciously motivated to seek external influences by a means which grants recognition to a seemingly undeniable reality? Its not just "I" that recognizes and perceives, but the collective consciousness of "human being" that allows us to decide with certainty or uncertainty that "I" am the only thing that "I" can certainly rectify as "knowing" the ultimate conclusion of actions and reactions.

Everyone perceives, therefore everyone is capable of comprehending or disputing the undeniable objective/subjective reality. Which means if the self is capable determining beings other than the self, then what is to say that the self is not already a property of these other worldly beings. What is to say that the properties of "I" are not also the property of "you", therefore ultimately concluding in a natural construct that we can all identify with.


Certainty or uncertainty does not play a role in this, nor is it necessarily compounded into knowing the frustration of not knowing. Because regardless of how much we compound reality with perception, the drive to extend and express knowing and unknowing continues.

Does a mirror observe itself? If you place two mirrors in a position where they reflect each other, where does one mirror end and the next show itself? Where does one come to a position of individuality or self identification and where does the next exclude itself from not reflecting the other?

It seems as though if one were to step between these mirrors they could certainly identify with the one they are facing, but if you look past the image of what you see, one will observe an unrelenting force, which may be repetitive in nature, that directly correlates with the position of the mirror behind you. Or, you will be able to observe your backside from looking forward.

In essence, solipsism is not something that is solely defined by the individual, but the collective motion which can be indefinitely understood by all. If we are all solipsistic, then does solipsism exist? Can you measure or gauge your own reactions with the guarantee that in the moment of your next engagement you will even be stimulated? Or does one always have to have something that is already there, to make something of it?

If reality is a construct of perception, and perception is a construct of the individual, then "I" is certainly all I can know and measure. In the essence that "I" pertains to the collective whole of human consciousness, which reflects primarily upon the desire to gauge the willingness and fortitude of others.

"I" is all that can be known, and through knowing of self we manifest knowing of others, which gradually manifests itself to mean that all we observe and all we are capable of observing are constructs of human motivation. A creation with no creator, and a creator with no motivation.

 

[Orias]

Yet reality is a construct of what? Perception and being? God?

What we ultimately conclude in being "knowledge" is merely subsequent to that of formally lacking knowledge.

A door cannot open itself, but a door is a construct of us. Therefore when we open a door, it is essentially opening itself. Both metaphorically and literally, the door was constructed and designed to be manifested in a way that both requires and does not require our usage of it. In this regard, even a closed door is an open one.

So if reality can be objectified, then a non realistic scenario can be comprehended through means of subjective interpretation, which ultimately relies on objective consequences. Ergo stemming an objective reality into a consequential subjective one, which again, does not rely on our usage of it. Subjectivity and objectivity are merely linguistic terms used to define the same thing, which impacts our very being.

 

[Iti oj]

We as a race make up an organ of this planet some of us have becomr cancer. We need the i just like we need we.

 

[crossfire]

Jung (Young) Earth Creationism? :areyoucra

 

[Orias]

Yet reality is a construct of what? Perception and being? God?

What we ultimately conclude in being "knowledge" is merely subsequent to that of formally lacking knowledge.

A door cannot open itself, but a door is a construct of us. Therefore when we open a door, it is essentially opening itself. Both metaphorically and literally, the door was constructed and designed to be manifested in a way that both requires and does not require our usage of it. In this regard, even a closed door is an open one.

So if reality can be objectified, then a non realistic scenario can be comprehended through means of subjective interpretation, which ultimately relies on objective consequences. Ergo stemming an objective reality into a consequential subjective one, which again, does not rely on our usage of it. Subjectivity and objectivity are merely linguistic terms used to define the same thing, which impacts our very being.

I have a feeling most of you couldn't really understand what the real point is.

I'll emphasize this post that I'm quoting and more importantly the last couple of sentences (the last block or paragraph of text if you will).

 

[jasonwill2]

A door cannot open itself, but a door is a construct of us.

You lost me here because I don't get the basis for the metaphor. Why am I door that can't open itself yet does?

 

[crossfire]

You lost me here because I don't get the basis for the metaphor. Why am I door that can't open itself yet does?

We bind (and blind) ourselves by clinging to our preconceived concepts. We can't see what we don't think possible--we filter it out--out of habit--habitual clinging.

 

[Orias]

You lost me here because I don't get the basis for the metaphor. Why am I door that can't open itself yet does?

Read the sentence that follows that statement.

 

[Orias]

A door cannot open itself, but a door is a construct of us. Therefore when we open a door, it is essentially opening itself. Both metaphorically and literally, the door was constructed and designed to be manifested in a way that both requires and does not require our usage of it. In this regard, even a closed door is an open one.

I should expand on this a bit more, the last sentence doesn't exactly justify the part before it and nor is it completely justified in itself. Though I don't think anything can or ever will be completely justified, I'll try.

Something that does not continually require our usage yet requires our constructing of it is both what it isn't and what it is, a closed door is an open one and an open door is a closed one. The saying goes, when one door closes another opens.

The reason the door, which was constructed by us, is open and closed at all times is because it was designed for one purpose or another, to be open or closed for a specified duration. While at the same time, the closed door cannot be closed anymore than it already is, hence its opening is conclusive in that any moment in which it no longer remains static it is not longer open or closed, but it is open to both roles. So in every moment where the door is inert and also in motion, it is palpable by both roles.

As far as this goes, even a narrow mind is an open one, of course of all this has to be applied with small tastings. But I'm not done with this topic yet, I'm unsatisfied with the definitions I proposed and feel like I could do better.

 

[jasonwill2]

I should expand on this a bit more, the last sentence doesn't exactly justify the part before it and nor is it completely justified in itself. Though I don't think anything can or ever will be completely justified, I'll try.

Something that does not continually require our usage yet requires our constructing of it is both what it isn't and what it is, a closed door is an open one and an open door is a closed one. The saying goes, when one door closes another opens.

The reason the door, which was constructed by us, is open and closed at all times is because it was designed for one purpose or another, to be open or closed for a specified duration. While at the same time, the closed door cannot be closed anymore than it already is, hence its opening is conclusive in that any moment in which it no longer remains static it is not longer open or closed, but it is open to both roles. So in every moment where the door is inert and also in motion, it is palpable by both roles.

As far as this goes, even a narrow mind is an open one, of course of all this has to be applied with small tastings. But I'm not done with this topic yet, I'm unsatisfied with the definitions I proposed and feel like I could do better.

I'm sorry but your talk of doors does not speak to me, I prefer holes to be blown in the walls.

Also I can't help but think of the forum member ''Doors of Perception" every time you say doors.

 

[jasonwill2]

If you place two mirrors in a position where they reflect each other, where does one mirror end and the next show itself? Where does one come to a position of individuality or self identification and where does the next exclude itself from not reflecting the other?

I love when you do that with two mirrors. It's like an infinity of mirrors into eventual darkness.

However on a serious note solipsism as I understand it is the belief that either only you exist or that you can only know for sure that you exist, I forget which.

Or am I confusing this with something else?

 

[Orias]

The topic I wrote requires some heavy reading, you can't really skip sentences here or there, you have to read the whole thing!

 

[Adramelek]

From a Setian perspective, crossing the threshold of a door or a gateway to a new, higher state of being is the Act of Xeper. The Key to unlocking further doors of the mysteries of existence and Being is Remanifestation. It is through the continual Remanifestation of all that we have thus far become through Xeper which guides us beyond the horizon and leads us to new doors or gateways to the realms of further horizons of Being and is the Key which unlocks them.

Xeper is the Way, Remanifestation is the Key; this is why we Setians say:

Xeper and Remanifest.
/Adramelek\
Gnothi seauton!

 

[Bhairava]

Orias you are very wise. I didnt realize that stuff until I was going through the states of enlightenment. But who says you arent enlightened? In Trika Shaivism there are 7 states of Turya aka enlightenment and the 7th state is full enlightenment aka Turyatita which means beyond the 4th. Turya is the 4th state beyond the known states of waking, dreaming, sleeping. I noticed what you are talking about in the 3rd state of Turya. One thing they dont tell you about enlightenment is when you transcend the ego you dont only transcend yours.

 

[Adramelek]

Now that I've thought about it, I can honestly say that even though to me the Self is the most sacred Element of existence, it is not the only reality. The self, however, is able to percieve and even change reality on its own terms. We live in a universe of many selves and each self is unique and isolate. This is why individual personas and ideas clash from time to time, especially in the realm of the Left Hand Path.

Individualism is a permanent and very powerful aspect of the human condition, and is a threat to those who seek power and dominance over others. All attempts to snuff out the flame of the individual self or psyche have failed historically. Political philosophies such as socialism and facism attempt to destroy the sense of self and individual identity in favor of the collective community of the state, but they have always failed. The only way to destroy the individual is to annihilate the entire human race.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\
Gnothi seauton!