I don't "deny" any labels people make up to tack onto other people. They do that for their own understanding, and then they get all tangled up in semantics and interpretations and stupid useless arguments. Some people's idea of solipsism is wrong because they define "self" as a single human being.

I simply define the ultimate self as God.

I'm not talking about supporting you, you silly girl!

I'm talking about the "Law of Attraction".

You see, I too would like to support the "Law of Attraction"

I'm just denouncing YOUR VERSION of it.

That's all.

You don't OWN the idea.

You're so totally absorbed with yourself that you can't see beyond that. From you're point of view it's all about Abracadabra versus Jeanniebean.

From my point of view it's about a philosophy called the "Law of Attraction"

Thanks for the vote of confidence, JB and Savlatore! The opinions and theories I've have read here are thought provoking. My thought is, and this is just my opinion, I don't believe we are God. I believe we are selfish. Some just happen to be selfish in good ways and some in bad. Most are insignificant. I also don't think we can do anything we want. If we could, we would. Some are more self-motivating than others. It's a gift! I don't see myself as negative, I see myself as realistic.
Interesting post, JB!

At least you left the window open Nobel!Peace brother!

Realism is good.

I never claimed to "own the idea" James. In fact I posted a huge long post of dozens of books written on the subject for people interested. I don't have time to educate the world. I only wish to point them in a direction that might help empower them to improve their lives. It is totally up to them to go where they want.

It is a UNIVERSAL LAW not a measly man-made "philosophy." If you don't like "my version" of it, there are hundreds more 'versions.'

If you don't find one for yourself, all I can say is that it is your loss.

I found my version a long time ago in Buddism.

It doesn't require solipsism. It has a pantheistic approach.

Also, you keep referring to all the books you've read on the topic. Did any of those books specifically deny solipsism?

I haven't denied the version you describe. All I've done is point out that it would require solipsism as you describe it.

That's all.

But you deny that it is solipsism. Did the authors you read even address that issue at all. If so perhaps you can share a specific book and chapter where that issue is address. I can go to the library and get the book out and read specifically how they address this issue.

Maybe that's what we should have done way back at square one.

My apologies for not thinking of this earlier.

How do they address the question of solipsism? Do they reject it, embrace it, or just avoid the issue like the plague?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Listen all you crazy kids...I'm clocking out for tonight.I wish you all you wish yourselves...and hope you have great dreams.Remember..whatever happens here...we all still eat cookies together on the outside.Last person out..shut the lights!

That's the spirit!

Have a great evening!

Thanks James..you too.Get some rest...we all have a long day of trying to figure out the universe tomorrow!

I concur.

Yes even you Bushi...it's alot like Vegas...whatever happens here..stays here!Bushi...YOU DA MAN!

I don't think any of the books I read ever mentioned or discussed any labels such as solipsism, pantheism, Buddhism etc.

But I have already answered your question about solipsism. It is just a label. If "SELF" is defined as GOD, then solipsism makes perfect sense because this consciousness "God" is all that exists and all that He/she/It is, is a dream or created by He/She/It.

Hence, Solipsism. Also, Pantheism.

So it depends on your point of view.

To get all hung up on these trivial details in the face of a universal truth tends to only stunt your spiritual growth, so I don't do it.

The way I handle these questions is to realize that I (me the little self) cannot possibly know all the answers.... so I have faith (YES FAITH!) in ME (THE ULTIMATE SELF OR GOD) to work out the details.

I don't sweat the details, I embrace the law and what is, and I let the ULTIMATE SELF (GOD) handle the rest.

So, you can accuse me of being "religious" now if you want, if being "religious" means I have faith.

Because I do have faith. Simple uncomplicated faith.

Love, Joy, Compassion, Faith. That is my current focus.

I bet your a hoot to sit around and get lit with!

Goodnight folks! Time for my power walk.

Terminological destruction at it's worst.



There are several key issues here...

You are using common terms with very uncommon meanings, you are speaking an entirely different language my friend, and that is just one of the inherent problems in this thread.

The brutalization of common language and meaning.

Common terms have common meanings, and should a writer choose to use such a term in a way that the definition is altered beyond normal recognition, then the meaning of that term is lost in the discussion. When that is the case - as in this response by yourself, and throughout this thread - either the author clarifies the definition so that those who use the terms correctly can understand the difference between the common usage and that which is being claimed, or one is speaking complete nonsense. Correctly meaning using the term as it is most commonly understood.

Let me give some examples...



Oh but I beg to differ, my good man.

"I am creating a different world than you."

First...

This presupposes the idea that you or I can create something, specifically 'a world'.

Prove it! Make something from nothing! If you cannot demonstrate this, then you cannot create. That is my assertion. No one creates. We simply use what was already available prior to humans ever walking upon this earth.

I suggest you invent a new word which will effectively describe what you mean when using the term create.

Second...

You made the unfounded assertion which is riddled with presupposition that I can disprove, and have in recent past. It is my job to make sense of what is being experienced... that includes this discussion at hand. If you feel it is not 'your job' to provide clarity to a discussion in which your choice of terms lends to a confusion in common meaning, then why communicate with another?



Whatever...

Airplane cutting dishes toilet paper holds runs frequently socks dead!

Did you create your misunderstanding of the above???



Use terms correctly and understanding will be had... it is the entire purpose of language.



And this has anything to do with what???



I do... do you?



Statements are based upon meaning. Effective communication means shared understanding/meaning. Words have, carry, and share meaning. That is why one writes... to convey thoughts and meaning. You conveyed your thoughts which have no meaning to me, as a result from your using the terms in completely unfamiliar and uncommon ways.you

I ask you again...





Nothing and everything are all inclusive terms... In other words... absolutes.

What would a substantiation of this assertion even look like? What grounds are these statements based upon? If it is this way, can we show it to be?

Some people are so mental they can't get outside of their own brains and just be. What tangled thoughts and lives we create.

Personal remarks display an obvious lack of argumental substance.



What I wrote makes sense.

It makes sense to you perhaps.

To you, "creating something" seems to mean creating something "out of nothing."

So if nobody can "create" anything, according to you, then why does the word "create" even exist in our vocabulary?

And why did you name yourself "Creative" in this club?

You can't create anything if what you say is true. Therefore your user name is misleading.

I say that we can and do create!

We are in fact, co-creators of this universe.

You are one of those people who cannot see the forest for the trees and you make demands to others to PROVE IT! PROVE IT!

Prove what Creative? That we can create? Look around you. Who do you think created that? (You don't seem to believe in God, so it couldn't have been him or her.)

So who or what created anything? I suppose you will say this reality and everything you see just popped out of nothing by accident.

That idea is more preposterous than mine. Until YOU can prove something to ME stop telling me to prove what I say to you.

And don't think I'm going to fall for that big bang theory. Prove that if you do.

(It was not a personal remark, it was an observation.)

JB...



Everything in this universe so far as can be shown to exist - including that which has been 'created' by us like the term itself - is a derivative from some combination of foundational elements which existed far before mankind.

Therefore we cannot be responsible for their existence.



I use the term correctly. You confuse it's meaning to support your belief system.



In fact... Whatever!

How does one create that which existed prior? That makes no sense!



I am showing you the forest, but you are blinded by sheer will and the tree called create.



It was not you nor I!

No offense taken, and I do appreciate your effort to ensure that!



Do you have anything other than a semantical argument concerning the blatent misuse of the term create? What about the part concerning language and meaning?

Any refutation to offer?