Quote:

---

FranniePilgrim said:
I sometimes think we all are only able to interpret the signals from that which we receive from others and our surroundings in our own, unique, environmental determined way.

Thus, in a sense you are creating your very own, personal, analytical interpretation of reality - Not reality itself.

Your interpretation of reality, thus, is your own and fluid with change according to your position within it. That doesn't mean, however, that a man will turn into an actual manifestation of a duck if you look and think long enough. You can however, metaphorically describe a man as a duck - the metaphor, however, stays just that!

The actuality of things outside of yourself happening exclusively to your own benefit/destruction without direct influence from yourself in a physical implementation of these illusions, such as you typing these messages now - however, is not possible.

Don't stray too far of into delusion.

Like you maintained before - everything is meaningless - although everything does exist.

Note the potential that lies in the fact that you control what meaning you apply to things. You can act out the way in which it seems fit to you and to certain levels control the way in which others interpret you by projecting and making yourself available or unavailable in certain ways.

The tools used for interpretation are limited by your knowledge and our current evolutionary stage - we have to work together to improve this. 

Just play the game. Don't give the mechanics behind it too much thought.

You are in a position of emotionlessness - there is a lot of potential and power in that. You could BUT don't have to feel guilty or alone - or feel that something needs to be fixed.

Start manipulating your surroundings by acting out the way you wish. You are already acting. Life is a playground. Determine which actor within you during whatever situation would garner the greatest benefit to your own physical self. Remember though that all other organisms are doing the same for themselves (and not you) and would thus defend themselves if you undermine their importance over your own - just as you would do the same to them. There is a way of giving and getting at the same time.

Notice too how once you talk, act or move you cannot communicate or interpret experience directly. Your mind is interpreting things that has already happened or speculating what is going to happen - The actual present experience of events and of you is not definable.

All we can do it seems is just to choose how we observe the spectacle of our own inevitable movements - The observation thereof, again, CAN but doesn't have to be - painful, boring or pointless.   

Detach emotion and pride, but do not attempt to remove consciousness, from the "self".

---

Quote:

---

FranniePilgrim said:
For the sake of a thought experiment, imagine yourself going outside and you see a man walking in one direction. You have never met this person. He is on his own path. You can choose to do nothing and let him continue walking. Your existence, to him, in this moment is non-existent.

But,

You can also choose to walk up to him and say: "Fuck you!" or: "Hey man, I like your style". Suddenly, you become PART of his existence, but not the definition thereof.

The severity of his reaction to you is both dependent on your choice of interaction - based of and restricted to your own culminative experiences - and his interpretation of said action - based of and restricted to his own culminative experiences.

You, and everyone else, are both the man walking and the man observing, to yourself and to others. Life is an inter-play of actions and reactions.

Trick is also - "you" don't have to mean (or be emotionally attached to) what you say/do in order to get what you want/don't want/need/don't need.

However,

What you mean, what you need, what you want and who you are - are separate things to the eyes on the outside but can be restructured in yourself to fit your own purpose. Nonetheless the substance of the structure you create of yourself remains lucrative and much more liquid than solid. Thus, just go with the flow.

---

Quote:

---

From my own observations the discussions if not a complete farce is a disingenuous.

---

Quote:

---

Jaegar said:
Fuck humanity really dons' t stand a chance does it.

---

Quote:

---

Don't really know what your persona regurgitated into action but it's mundane.

---

stop reediting your posts it's confusing. i dont know what content this is addressing or how it is relevant?

seems like a personalism..

tho i really couldnt care what you think my persona is or what you think about it

Quote:

---

Thanatos10 said:

Quote:

---

FranniePilgrim said:
For the sake of a thought experiment, imagine yourself going outside and you see a man walking in one direction. You have never met this person. He is on his own path. You can choose to do nothing and let him continue walking. Your existence, to him, in this moment is non-existent.

But,

You can also choose to walk up to him and say: "Fuck you!" or: "Hey man, I like your style". Suddenly, you become PART of his existence, but not the definition thereof.

The severity of his reaction to you is both dependent on your choice of interaction - based of and restricted to your own culminative experiences - and his interpretation of said action - based of and restricted to his own culminative experiences.

You, and everyone else, are both the man walking and the man observing, to yourself and to others. Life is an inter-play of actions and reactions.

Trick is also - "you" don't have to mean (or be emotionally attached to) what you say/do in order to get what you want/don't want/need/don't need.

However,

What you mean, what you need, what you want and who you are - are separate things to the eyes on the outside but can be restructured in yourself to fit your own purpose. Nonetheless the substance of the structure you create of yourself remains lucrative and much more liquid than solid. Thus, just go with the flow.

---

But how does that help me resolve as to whether or not you and other things are just a product of my mind and not real? That I'm not dreaming? To me it seems like you can't prove one or the other so there is no point in believing in it (Because that's what it is, a belief).

---

Quote:

---

Jaegar said:
Lol you love it.

Funking validation.


Pretend you matter.

Hey I get it.

Your like the other 8 billion mammals. Which some would say is remarkably small in comparison the the universe.

---

hey i do love validation and pretending i matter and i am like the other 8 bil people in the world good call

i dont know what the fuck kind of bender youve been on but this conversation basically stopped making sense a while ago (if it ever did)

Quote:

---

DividedQuantum said:

Quote:

---

Thanatos10 said:

Quote:

---

FranniePilgrim said:
For the sake of a thought experiment, imagine yourself going outside and you see a man walking in one direction. You have never met this person. He is on his own path. You can choose to do nothing and let him continue walking. Your existence, to him, in this moment is non-existent.

But,

You can also choose to walk up to him and say: "Fuck you!" or: "Hey man, I like your style". Suddenly, you become PART of his existence, but not the definition thereof.

The severity of his reaction to you is both dependent on your choice of interaction - based of and restricted to your own culminative experiences - and his interpretation of said action - based of and restricted to his own culminative experiences.

You, and everyone else, are both the man walking and the man observing, to yourself and to others. Life is an inter-play of actions and reactions.

Trick is also - "you" don't have to mean (or be emotionally attached to) what you say/do in order to get what you want/don't want/need/don't need.

However,

What you mean, what you need, what you want and who you are - are separate things to the eyes on the outside but can be restructured in yourself to fit your own purpose. Nonetheless the substance of the structure you create of yourself remains lucrative and much more liquid than solid. Thus, just go with the flow.

---

But how does that help me resolve as to whether or not you and other things are just a product of my mind and not real? That I'm not dreaming? To me it seems like you can't prove one or the other so there is no point in believing in it (Because that's what it is, a belief).

---

You're just going to have to decide whether there is validity to common sense (or not).  If it is such a leap of faith for you to concede that reality is in fact real, you're just in a bad place psychologically.  Technically, you can't prove anything is real.  But in my experience (and I was once the same way) you just have to have faith in common sense, and decide that people really do exist, and there's a fucking huge universe out there full of God knows what.  Does it make any more sense to you that you're a simulation of some higher race?  Or maybe just some silly little primate mucking around on Earth, after all.

Other than that I don't really know what to tell you.  I think you sense there is a very real problem with solipsism given that you have created this thread.  So it's just up to you to decide.

---

Quote:

---

Thanatos10 said:
I guess this is just one of those questions we don't have answers to and I need to be ok with that.

---

Quote:

---

quinn said:
dearest circastes

the pic in your signature is disturbing. also quite well made.

what the hell is it and why.

please report back

---

Quote:

---

Thanatos10 said:
Has anyone here encountered this before? Also how did you manage to get out of it. I'm finding it really hard to move past the whole reality being my dream and people not being real. It's starting to scare me and i don't know how to combat it.

---

you go up to someone and

Quote:

---

Kurt said:
Shake off the guilt trip (often impressed by others as a "psychological" problem). Solipsism is a genuine philophical problem, and thoughtful people in the modern world will will recognize this in certain ways.

If they do recognize it, or what the conditions of solipsism really are, they will at the same time realize the seperation and alienation is usually not fundamental.

You live in a culture that values and irresponsibly asserts the place of a mental an intellect as the basis of existence. You yourself, say you are contained to mental contents. Well, where is this supposed place of the mind, or intellect that the western tradition purportedly values so much? Could you point to it?

Maybe you can imagine its roundabout location around an inch or two behind your eyes. But don't look just to its place so approximately and dogmatically; consider, have you ever observed yourself think? Well, maybe leave that query also, to the meditation practice, or your gurus to ask you.

The question I would ask, is are there any empirical observations that have been made of a consciousness, or mind, the place of thinking? There has been a whole lot said, a lot of rationalizations people have made of there being a consciousness, or its isolated place, but nobody has observed a conscious entity, that is demarked and contained.

Likewise the broader foundation of modern western intellectual values, namely, the one that asserts the basis of "intellectual", is not itself just intellectual. For example, in the same provision just suggested, what is this supposed "subject" we each "are"? Again do not consider it dogmatically, but consider what is meant by the word, subject and look for it.

Is subjectivity, just the imagined "place" of you or I that sets us up to relate to a world, or consensus of objectivity? Purportedly, above all, subjectivity is a place in these affairs (in one sense that it has to have its place) but I just asked fairly, what is this subject we are.

It is also fair to mention, a subject is supposed to be something we genuinely inquire into, and so when people mark subjectivity as the basis of inquiry, do we inquire into it? Since Aristotle, a subject itself opened to knowledge. A tree is a subject of inquiry, or a flower, or a book, because in marking them as subjects they are things that open to us, and show us the way they are, in themselves. The subject of a sentence opens to what is said of it.

People today seem to be bewitched by a grammatical notion. The critical question for the practicing solipsist would be, why do we call the subject "we are" a subject?

Get to it. This is because one philosopher in a moment of history, suggested, that all things may be doubted but that oneself thinks. One thinks, therefore one is, compared to everything. He suggested this doubting in certain means to ground the "foundation of the sciences". Hence we speak of a subject we are, as thinking and doubting, and this thoughtful doubt as prior to actual subjects in the world. He never reconciled this purportedly substantive subject of the mind with the subject of the world, and here is the kicker - that is why people accept mental and physical division as the basis of all things.

You can read all about it here (And I recommend reading the original source of this argument "I think therefore I am"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Method

Hope this is helpful. It may be a bit formal. (One has to be as formal as what one wishes to critique) The best way to get out of solipsism is to value your subjective experiences and senses and feelings, rather than formalize them as the basis of some ill begotten notion of certain knowledge. People might call you dumb for this (I have heard it from the cognitively centered) but being just physical and in your senses is no foul. Best luck.

---

Quote:

---

Kurt said:
Solipsistic logic, which is the heart of a certain kind of intellectualism and intellectual culture that is supposed to be "detached" could inform your attitude, prior to you recognizing it. I am not certain. I am just, by whatever pretense, attempting to formulate what I think a solipsistic complex is, based on traditional sources in philosophy.

Keep in mind philosophical or intellectual culture itself is somewhat convoluted in terminology. Cartesian Dualism is something most people as individuals do not step out of. I would say it is possible, and yet  as a fundamental and enduring assumption of our "intellectual" western culture, it is impossible to step out of. It is impossible for instance, to take exception to constructing knowledge in terms of a subject and an object, and if you do, you will likely be accused of an error of reasoning. Or maybe you will somewhat unconsciously use this lexicon yourself.

Divided Quantum pretty much summarizes the general point, that a western person's idea and dominant philosophy of intellectualism is a particular culture, which is purportedly assuming a general and universal form in the detached or objective (ie. In the routine of subject meeting objective).

I don't think this solves your problem. Like I said, I am just constructing the notion, of what a solipsistic complex may be, and how it may be indoctrinated and related to your culture. You can think about it.

Purportedly there is a subject you are, that comes prior, and a subject that you look to in in the world, like what I am writing. (The subject of your present interest). Modern people suppose that these bases of subjects are split apart, as the subject of the mind, and the subject of the physical world, but prescribes that they must relate for us to have an appropriate intellectual exchange. What I have suggested, is that the subject you are (or rather the subjectivity of cartesian epistemology) does not exist, and can't be grounded. It is a formality.

I don't think this will sove your problems, but if you feel seperate, what I am attempting to describe is the way we are indoctrinated to take a seperate, synthetic view of things. I made some edit on the previous post, for clarity. (That italic was not intentional for one thing). I think this is the best I can do here anyway. Other than that, all anyone can say is work hard and focus and you'll figure things out in you life....Life is not just "there" existing, it is a work. 

---

Quote:

---

circastes said:
It's a self portrait of me eating a mushroom at my place.

Nah lolz, it's by Theyrada or some group of artists, I can't remember the name exactly. I saw it on Facebook. Not sure what it means entirely but sort of reminds me of Pan's Labrynth. Gives you something to think about.

---

cool, yeah it's creepy... pans labrynth, now there was a good film

Quote:

---

Shake off the guilt trip (often impressed by others as a "psychological" problem). Solipsism is a genuine philosophical problem, and thoughtful people in the modern world will will recognize this in certain ways.

If they do recognize it, or what the conditions of solipsism really are, they will at the same time realize the seperation and alienation is usually not fundamental.

You live in a culture that values and irresponsibly asserts the place of a mentality and intellect as the basis of existence. You yourself, say you are contained to mental contents in solipsism. Well, where is this supposed place of the mind, or intellect? Could you point to it?

Maybe you can imagine its roundabout location around an inch or two behind your eyes. But don't look just to its place so approximately and dogmatically; consider, have you ever observed yourself think? Well, maybe leave that query also, to the meditation practice, or your gurus to ask you...

The question I would ask, is formally, are there any empirical observations that have been made of a consciousness, or mind, as the place of thinking? There has been a whole lot said, a lot of rationalizations people have made about there being a consciousness, or where it is, but nobody has observed a conscious entity, that is demarked and contained.

Likewise the broader foundation of modern western intellectual values, namely, the one that asserts the basis of "intellectual", is not itself just intellectual. For example, in the same provision just suggested, what is this supposed conscious "subject"/subjectivity we each "are"? Again do not consider it dogmatically, but consider what is meant by the word "subject" and look for it.

Is subjectivity, just the imagined "place" of you or I, that sets us up in a general way to relate to a world, or consensus of objectivity? What does subjectum mean?

Purportedly, above all, subjectivity is a place in these affairs (in one sense that it has been suggested that something has to have its place) but I just asked fairly, what is this subject we are.

A subject is supposed to be something we genuinely inquire into, and so when people mark subjectivity as the basis of inquiry... do we sincerely inquire into it? What would we inquire to? Since Aristotle, a subject itself opened particularly to knowledge. A tree is a subject of inquiry, or a flower, or a book, because in marking them as subjects they are things that open to us, and show us the way they are, in themselves. The "subject" of a sentence opens to what is said of it, (in syllogistic logic for instance)

People today seem to be convinced by the relavence of this, as the importance of a "subject". Yet are conscious subjects generally like that? And the critical question for the practicing solipsist would be, why (in what sense) do we call the subject "we are" a subject? I would ask, because my doubt doesn't stop at "I think", nor does it arrive. I am in doubt there is such a thing.

To get to it, it seems to me this notion arises in part, as a rationalization, because one philosopher in a particular moment of history, (Descartes) suggested, that all things may be doubted, but that oneself thinks. The argument goes cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. This is what is supposedly indubitable.

One thinks, therefore one is, and of course, this is compared to everything which was found comparably only in provision of doubt. All the subjects of knowledge heretofore considered  and senses themselves, are possible to doubt. Descartes suggested this doubting in certain means, and provisions, to ground the "certain foundation of the sciences".

Hence in that proposed fashion we speak in generality of a subject we are, as the place of thinking and doubting, and this thoughtful doubt is prior to and conditioning the possibility of engaging actual subjects in the physical world, ie. what we can know (subjects of knowledge). In this sense, the world does not open to us in itself, but in our conditional subjective perceptions.

Interestingly, we can note, Descartes never reconciled this purportedly substantive subject of the mind (a " thinking thing") with the subject of the world. And here is the kicker - that is itself the constitution of a mental and physical division as the basis of all things (when that was supposed to be a foundation). The essence and consistency of this argument, (or rather inconsistency) is solipsism, a way of doubting to a point where one is just down to one's cognitive content.

You can read all about it here (And I recommend reading the original source of this argument "I think therefore I am" too)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Method

Hope this is helpful. Existential malaise is not just easily cured. This response may be a bit formal, respectively, but one has to be as formal as what one wishes to critique. It is possible to construct the conditions of solipsism in this way to understand it. Then maybe it is possible to avoid vesting in it. 

But the best way to get out of solipsism is to value your subjective experiences and senses and feelings, rather than formalize them as the basis of some ill begotten notion of certain knowledge to seek their validation. People might call you dumb for this (I have heard it from the cognitively centered) but being just physical and in your senses, and then intellectual, is no foul. Best luck.

---

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, but I can never understand any of your posts. It's like I'm reading them and the point you make just goes right over my head. Kind of like how I can't read philosophy books without getting lost after a few pages. The writing confuses me.

But as for solipsism, it's just now that I have an issue with it. Prior to that I just began to make other people seem unreal. I found emotions to be weak and caring about other people to be weak as well. Any emotion was squashed. I guess this is just a consequence of that. By shutting my emotions out and not caring about others, I began to not view them as anything. Of course this is just a dodge, a way to escape my emotions and having to care. IF they aren't real why bother right? Deep down I know it's cowardice and dodging but I can't seem to convince myself otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

What I am saying is that solipsistic logic, is at the heart of a certain kind of intellectualism and intellectual culture that is supposed to be "detached" from things. This is an assumption and there is nothing "strong" about this argument.

This indocrination could certainly inform your attitude, prior to you recognizing it. I suspect it does. Solipsism (the place of a paradigmatic "intellectual" argument) is itself (appropriately recognized) the insinuation of the mode of detachment you describe.

It is possible to formulate what a solipsistic complex is, in general in this way, too, in terms of traditional sources and assumptions in western philosophy. Maybe at the same time this is also the problem of spirit or psyche, but what can we say in regards to that here? So work with the philosophy.

Philosophical or intellectual culture is somewhat convoluted in terminology. Cartesian Dualism (subjectivism as a basis of skepticism/objectivity) is for this very reason something most people as individuals do not step out of, because they are not able to reconcile with the terms even though they commonly use them. This is perfectly well possible.

I think if people focused on this argument in Discourse on Method, they would wonder why they ever gave the problem or problematic of "subjectivity" any validity at all. At the same time, presently the fundamental and enduring assumption of our "intellectual" western culture, is that we are conscious subjects, met to objects, and it is also impossible to step out of subjectivity in this respect, culturally.

It is impossible to take exception to the "method" of constructing knowledge in these terms of a subject and an object, and if you do, you may likely be accused of an error of reasoning. Or maybe (more likely) you will somewhat unconsciously use this lexicon yourself, which again is quite possible. In any case....

Divided Quantum pretty much summarizes the general point that (relatively) a western person's idea and dominant philosophy of intellectual identity is of a particular culture. As we are looking to it, we can see it is a culture that suggests detachment as general basis of reasoning (ie. Or rather, in the routine delination of subject perceptions, senses, and experiences being described appropriately to meet objective consensus). The idea is to be able to step out of this to recognize it. How this is done is in focused philosophical interrogation.

What are these supposed confines of "subjectivity" which we are either in ourselves or according to our culture, encased in? Even if our perceptions are conditioned, what do we mean by that? What is a subject? Related to and sidelong of this critical question, (that must be left open so far as people believe in conscious subjects) is the general idea of what a solipsistic complex may be generally considered, accordingly. It is subjectivism, and belief in its general validity.

Purportedly there is a "subject" you are, (the conscious subject or subjectivity) that comes prior, and conditions any "subject" that you look to in in the world. That subject (any subject of interest) is accessible down to what I am writing here.

Modern people suppose that these two kinds of subjects are split apart, as the subject of the mind, and the subject of the physical world that is perceived, and also prescribe that they must relate commensurably (through sense) for us to have an appropriate intellectual exchange at the same time. That in a formal sense (conditioning epistemology) is what we look to in Cartesianism. The present cultural conception of knower and known.

What I have suggested, is that the subject you are (the subjectivity of cartesian epistemology) does not exist, and can't be grounded in the world sufficiently to posit as existence. There was never an observation of "I think"; only a rationalization that made that bubble of speculation appear compelling. Moreover that rationalization ends in isolation. Because one takes a skeptical attitude and thinks there is a basis for this they end up in a sphere of content that is irrelavent to the world. The non-existence, or nullity of the subject is represented by subjectivity, as what is "not real". If it was real or in general me tal contents referred to the real, they would be objects. This is how a subject-object philosophy and conjecture really works. It is a formality we assume.

If you feel seperate, as a "conscious subject" what I am attempting to describe is this general structure. It is in an entirely formal way, that we are indoctrinated to take a seperate, synthetic view of things. As compelling as that formal doctrine may be, it is not a compelling theory in itself, that such mental contents exist. The detachment of this mind (which is nothing less than its fundamental conception) is formally taken, and supposedly a strength in intellectual argument. In a way it is, and in another it is not at all. In a way it can be completely facile to believe and insinuate one's own skepticism or intelligibility is generally important. It isn't. But there was never really anything there to lose or feel embarrassed about.

All I or anyone can say is work hard and focus and you'll figure things out in you life, intellectually or otherwise. Life is not just "there" existing, it is a work, after all. I'd venture that is what implies your place in the world, not thoughtful rationalizations.

---

Quote:

---

I had long before remarked that, in relation to practice, it is sometimes necessary to adopt, as if above doubt, opinions which we discern to be highly uncertain, as has been already said; but as I then desired to give my attention solely to the search after truth, I thought that a procedure exactly the opposite was called for, and that I ought to reject as absolutely false all opinions in regard to which I could suppose the least ground for doubt, in order to ascertain whether after that there remained aught in my belief that was wholly indubitable. Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; and because some men err in reasoning, and fall into paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for demonstrations; and finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.

Renes Descartes Discourse on Method, Chapter 4

---

Quote:

---

Thus by considering that he who strives to doubt of all is unable nevertheless to doubt that he is while he doubts, and that what reasons thus, in not being able to doubt of itself and doubting nevertheless of everything else, is not that which we call our body, but what we name our mind or thought, I have taken the existence of this thought for the first principle, from which I very clearly deduced the following truths, namely, that there is a God who is the author of all that is in the world, and who, being the source of all truth, cannot have created our understanding of such a nature as to be deceived in the judgments it forms of the things of which it possesses a very clear and distinct perception. Those are all the principles of which I avail myself touching immaterial or metaphysical objects, from which I most clearly deduce these other principles of physical or corporeal things, namely, that there are bodies extended in length, breadth, and depth, which are of diverse figures and are moved in a variety of ways.

Principles of Philosophy

---

Quote:

---

Such are in sum the principles from which I deduce all other truths. The second circumstance that proves the clearness of these principles is, that they have been known in all ages, and even received as true and indubitable by all men, with the exception only of the existence of God, which has been doubted by some, because they attributed too much to the perceptions of the senses, and God can neither be seen nor touched.

---

Quote:

---

wiki reference

Descartes held that all existence consists in three distinct substances, each with its own essence:[4]

matter, possessing extension in three dimensions
mind, possessing self-conscious thought
God, possessing necessary existence

---

Quote:

---

viktor said:
Oh well. So you choose to suffer then. I'm glad that some people do, as that opens up space for me to feel joy. I suppose I should thank you, really.

---

Quote:

---

Thanatos10 said:
Has anyone here encountered this before? Also how did you manage to get out of it. I'm finding it really hard to move past the whole reality being my dream and people not being real. It's starting to scare me and i don't know how to combat it.

---

Quote:

---

Thanatos10 said:

A leap of faith doesn't work on every one. I don't choose this. It's my brain trying to wrack itself over all this. Am I supposed to just believe things exist?

---

Quote:

---

circastes said:

Quote:

---

quinn said:
dearest circastes

the pic in your signature is disturbing. also quite well made.

what the hell is it and why.

please report back

---

It's a self portrait of me eating a mushroom at my place.

Nah lolz, it's by Theyrada or some group of artists, I can't remember the name exactly. I saw it on Facebook. Not sure what it means entirely but sort of reminds me of Pan's Labrynth. Gives you something to think about.

---

Quote:

---

SleepyE said:
i had solipsism from ingesting a lot of psychedelics but i think it just shows you that you have more influence in your reality than you realize.

i think you are projecting this reality, but so is everyone else.

so i dont think you are alone per say.

---

Quote:

---

Loaded Shaman said:
Thanatos, are you under the genuine conviction that nothing exists outside of your head...or your consciousness?

---

Quote:

---

SleepyE said:
i had solipsism from ingesting a lot of psychedelics but i think it just shows you that you have more influence in your reality than you realize.

i think you are projecting this reality, but so is everyone else.

so i dont think you are alone per say.

---

Quote:

---

quinn said:
solipsistic thinking is misguided to begin with. we are socialised into a human society that provides us with the means, language, ideas and tools to construct a social identity, an identity that we never generated from within ourselves but that we came to inhabit through living and interacting with others. we dont create the world it creates us and we live every breathing moment within it as social agents shaping and being shaped.

---

Quote:

---

quinn said:
HAIRCUT

---

Quote:

---

Duncan Rowhl said:

Quote:

---

SleepyE said:
i had solipsism from ingesting a lot of psychedelics but i think it just shows you that you have more influence in your reality than you realize.

i think you are projecting this reality, but so is everyone else.

so i dont think you are alone per say.

---

This I witnessed too and came to the same conclusion.

---

Simultaneous reality projection by individuated consciousness packets .

Quote:

---

Thanatos10 said:

Quote:

---

Loaded Shaman said:
Thanatos, are you under the genuine conviction that nothing exists outside of your head...or your consciousness?

---

Not really but I find it hard to claw my way out of that perception...

---