Regina wrote:
The silly me would like to have that spelled out clearly:
You and me and everybody else and "God" are one experiencing itself/herself/himself in numerous ways?

It's just a way of using 'God' in a sentence in such a way that it is not quite so obvious that it is a sign without a referent. If you use 'everything' to refer to itself, what have you really accomplished? It's as if you were in a computer and were declaring a pointer to the entire memory space of the system. Where can you store the pointer? Think infinite regress.

Thought so.
Anyway, I had a quick peek at james' other contributions in this forum. (I hadn't paid much attention previously.)
I'm inclined to regard it as a compliment when he calls my posts "silly".

Regina wrote:Thought so.
Anyway, I had a quick peek at james' other contributions in this forum. (I hadn't paid much attention previously.)
I'm inclined to regard it as a compliment when he calls my posts "silly".

Silly, eh?

jamest wrote:However, for the rational solipsist, God is at once itself, everything, and being everyone. There are no different individuals - there is just one individual experiencing itself in numerous ways.

So when I cop a feel in a crowded metro car, it's just me feeling my own behind. I get it. I'm lucky I don't press charges against myself. In fact, I'm beside myself with indignation.

Interesting point.
The concept of "crime" is literally impossible for a "rational" solipsist, or am I wrong?

Regina wrote:Interesting point.
The concept of "crime" is literally impossible for a "rational" solipsist, or am I wrong?

It's not possible to be right or wrong about the tenets of rational solipsism, Regina. Crime is just one of the ways God can experience itself. God considers it an unpleasant experience and wants it to go away, but since God is everywhere and everything, and crime is nowhere and nothing, there's no place for it to go, and nothing to do once it gets there.

I understand that.
But I'm the practical type.
Can jamest, with a good conscience, press charges against someone who damages his property, for example?
Hang on, individual property is impossible, yes?
What about one's sex life? "Rational" solipsists can only experience masturbation, right?

Regina wrote:"Rational" solipsists can only experience masturbation, right?

Oh my. I'll try and respond to your various concerns later, when I have more time.

Regina wrote:
What about one's sex life? "Rational" solipsists can only experience masturbation, right?

Nachts (bei Nacht) sind alle Katzen grau.

Don't hammer me too hard for this. I had to look it up. The moment of orgasm is the best time for solipsism, but any opiate or satori will do. Orgasm and opiate binding is empirical, satori is anecdotal.

Regina wrote:I understand that.
But I'm the practical type.
Can jamest, with a good conscience, press charges against someone who damages his property, for example?
Hang on, individual property is impossible, yes?
What about one's sex life? "Rational" solipsists can only experience masturbation, right?

Ownership is a concept in a context of the experienced world, so of course property, damage, theft, and crime all apply.

Masturbation is an experience of being X having sex with being X. An experience of being X having sex with being Y is not an experience of masturbation.

Of course 'having sex' has no metaphysical depth, it's a story element in X-God's epic Tom & Jerry cartoon (Now in 3D!!).

What I think you are getting as is does anything matter if its all just a work of fiction? No mind dies, no suffering occurs that is not willingly orchestrated by the One who suffers.

I agree, that is a serious problem with James' philosophy. 'Meaning' is reduced to a plot device for characters to 'care about' (or not). Genocide, rape and torture are no more or less acceptable to the One than nursing a baby, saving a child from starvation or giving chocolates to your mum on Mother's day. They are all just experiences for the One, made by the One, because the One wants to have them.

Oh, I guess I didn't express myself clearly enough.
Based on this statement

jamest wrote:However, for the rational solipsist, God is at once itself, everything, and being everyone. There are no different individuals - there is just one individual experiencing itself in numerous ways.

you can only ever experience yourself , so having sex with someone else and masturbating is basically the same, as the other is also you.
And since any number of people are having sex as I'm writing this, and indeed 24/7, our "rational" solipsist must be having a grand time.
It would stress me out, though. You can have too much of a good thing

How does a solipsist get to his conclusion though? They'd have to ignore the world around them completely to come to that conclusion. It could be their own mind but how do they prove it?

Oh and Regina, how is God experiencing himself through us as individuals (all of us being part of this God mind) any different to us experiencing the universe as a physical thing? I mean we are all just matter and energy in the end, all the same substance, so we might as well be having sex with ourselves. We are all different points of view of the same substance (the universe). I think this is what Jamest is saying.

Not quite.

There are no different individuals - there is just one individual experiencing itself in numerous ways.

I think that's pretty clear. We are all one. Not roughly 7 billion individuals.

Regina wrote:
And since any number of people are having sex as I'm writing this, and indeed 24/7, our "rational" solipsist must be having a grand time.

The solipsist/universe is having one hell of a time yes. I'm not though, because I am not getting any sex and I'm just one part of the totality of mind/universe.

Also, the solipsist is having a terrible time too because of all the people suffering from cancer, starvation etc.

The question is, does the rational solipsist have any control over his own mind?

Regina wrote:Not quite.

There are no different individuals - there is just one individual experiencing itself in numerous ways.

I think that's pretty clear. We are all one. Not roughly 7 billion individuals.

I know he's saying WE are all ONE. Not I am all one. Each "individual" is actually just part of the GREATER individual solipsist. The God-mind.

In other words the rational solipsist is one individual experiencing itself through many smaller minds.

Regina wrote:

jamest wrote:
any/most people think that 'God' (or whatever you want to call it) is that which exists beyond the conscious self, such that God is deemed to be separate from the self. However, for the rational solipsist, God is at once itself, everything, and being everyone. There are no different individuals - there is just one individual experiencing itself in numerous ways.

The silly me would like to have that spelled out clearly:
You and me and everybody else and "God" are one experiencing itself/herself/himself in numerous ways?
And how exactly is that more rational than what asdfjkl presents here?

It means that you are 'X', experiencing itself as Regina. It means that I am X, experiencing itself as james. It means that Cito is X... etc..

Hence, X (God, Brahman, whatever) is at once itself (the totality of being X), everything (that aspect of itself which translates into 'the world'), and being everyone (having the numerous experiences of being different people).

It's more rational than asdfjkl's narration of solipsism because his opinion is that there's nothing evident other than his own consciousness. This isn't true for reasons provided - he cannot account for the content of his consciousness, which includes that of 'others' apparently communicating with him. Yet he does not see this as evidence of existence beyond his own awareness?!

- Rational solipsism (as I've called it), embraces this evident non-conscious element of one's Self within its narrative. The subsequent conclusion derived from this (about X being everyone), facilitates experiential interaction and communication between different consciousnesses housed within X itself. That is, X can experience itself in a singular 'domain', as being many different people/animals (and anything else that might be conscious)...

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players. (WS, of course)

Yes, but the "smaller minds" are the WEs, aren't they?

jamest wrote:

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players. (WS, of course)

This may come as surprise to you (or is it me?) but I know to whom these lines are attributed.
Which, on second thought, is not at all surprising, because we are one.

jamest wrote:
It means that you are 'X', experiencing itself as Regina. It means that I am X, experiencing itself as james. It means that Cito is X... etc..

It's like saying I am a cell in a scab on the nail-bitten pinkie of X and that I am also the motive force in the mind of X at the same time. Very compelling stuff. You get grandeur, humility, strength, weakness. We laughed, we cried, we ate popcorn. Boffo!

Speaking of which, where's orpheus?

jamest wrote:

Regina wrote:

jamest wrote:
any/most people think that 'God' (or whatever you want to call it) is that which exists beyond the conscious self, such that God is deemed to be separate from the self. However, for the rational solipsist, God is at once itself, everything, and being everyone. There are no different individuals - there is just one individual experiencing itself in numerous ways.

The silly me would like to have that spelled out clearly:
You and me and everybody else and "God" are one experiencing itself/herself/himself in numerous ways?
And how exactly is that more rational than what asdfjkl presents here?

It means that you are 'X', experiencing itself as Regina. It means that I am X, experiencing itself as james. It means that Cito is X... etc..

Hence, X (God, Brahman, whatever) is at once itself (the totality of being X), everything (that aspect of itself which translates into 'the world'), and being everyone (having the numerous experiences of being different people).

It's more rational than asdfjkl's narration of solipsism because his opinion is that there's nothing evident other than his own consciousness. This isn't true for reasons provided - he cannot account for the content of his consciousness, which includes that of 'others' apparently communicating with him. Yet he does not see this as evidence of existence beyond his own awareness?!

- Rational solipsism (as I've called it), embraces this evident non-conscious element of one's Self within its narrative. The subsequent conclusion derived from this (about X being everyone), facilitates experiential interaction and communication between different consciousnesses housed within X itself. That is, X can experience itself in a singular 'domain', as being many different people/animals (and anything else that might be conscious)...

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players. (WS, of course)

I understand this point of view. But how does this explain dreams? In a dream there may be what seems to be individuals, but they obviously aren't conscious too?