Individual experience for The One

[lifegazer]

Fair enough -- you appear to accept that subjective reality exists. Your statement that all experienced things have no reality in and of themselves, while true in a certian very strict sense, is missing the point.

Actually, it's just 'true'.
And what is "the point"?

OK, then how is the Experiencer sufficent to explain itself?
Please reply with something a bit more rigorous than "it just is" or "fiat ego".

What? I don't understand what the question is. Are you asking me how we can know that there is an experiencER, or how we can know that the experiencER is different to the experience? Or neither?

While it is true that my experiences themselves could be considered on par with phantoms and dreams, it does not follow that the things that caused those experiences must have the same phantasmal status. If you think that the causes of my experiences must be as phantasmal as the experiences themselves, then you are a solipsist.

I only described the experiences themselves - sensations which give the appearance of a world of things. Every 'thing' that you observe, is unreal in itself.

What evidence do you have of this? The mere fact that you do not know the contents of my dreams or what I do in my sleep should tell you something important about the nature of intersubjective reality.

The point is that you saw evidence of other beings via your communication with them. My point is that this isn't evidence of other beings... and your dreams should make this obvious as to the reason why.
If you don't have dreams where you interact with others, then you will be lacking this evidence. But I am not.

As an aside, are you certain you understand the difference between reality as experienced in dreams and reality as experienced when awake?

(ed. spelling)

I know the difference. I also know the commonality. Do you?

 

[nescafe]

Actually, it's just 'true'.
And what is "the point"?

I believe that "experienced things" are not real in the sense that experiences, by themselves, are not logically sufficent to explain themselves.

What? I don't understand what the question is. Are you asking me how we can know that there is an experiencER, or how we can know that the experiencER is different to the experience? Or neither?

I am asking you all of the above, and I am asking for (roughly) a logical explanation for why your answers are the simplest and most complete answers we can have.

I only described the experiences themselves - sensations which give the appearance of a world of things. Every 'thing' that you observe, is unreal in itself.

Then what causes the sensations that are responsible for my experiences?

The point is that you saw evidence of other beings via your communication with them. My point is that this isn't evidence of other beings... and your dreams should make this obvious as to the reason why.

Well, it is good to know that I can never be certian that I can know that others exist in the same way I can be certian that I exist. I already stated that this is an assumption that I make, and that I know that I cannot rigorously prove it one way or another.

Can you say anything useful about these potentially non-existent "others" without making the assumption that they do, in fact, possess the same sort of inner complexity that you do?

To give you a concrete example, why do you think I keep responding in this thread? Why do you think that I think that way? What data to you use to explain why I think the way you think I do, and why do you think the explanation you drew from that data makes sense?
(ed. minor grammar change)

If you don't have dreams where you interact with others, then you will be lacking this evidence. But I am not.

And when I have lucid dreams, I can make every aspect of that dream-reality (including people) conform to my every whim just by wanting it to. Oddly enough, I cannot do that with waking reality (and not for lack of trying when I was younger and more foolish). What does that prove?

I know the difference. I also know the commonality. Do you?

Yes, but I rather doubt we agree in what the differences and commonalities are, and what conclusions can be drawn from those differences and commonalitites.

 

[Imaginative]

I believe that existence is absolutely singular and that every ~thing~ else is a concept/thing gleaned from the relative relationships that are comprehended from within consciousness of the appearance of the world (appearance of divided existence).
In other words, there's no world, other than the experienced one.

Thanks anyway for the acknowledgment. I wasn't trying to garner support from you, only an objective look at my idea, simply because your own idea(s) are quite out there for this forum.

As it happens, I do like your idea in this current thread, but how does your idea take into account the end of experience/sensation when we die, i.e brain death. If this question isn't appropriate for this thread or you think it might derail it then don't answer it, it's OK.

Quote : 'We are each other'