************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Regarding solopsism:
Interesting word, concept and state of mind. It was either Dennis or Filbert who defined stupidity as the inability to evaluate data. And ignorance as being the lack of data to evaluate. I can't imagine more precise definitions. These are perfect definitions. Then to reason and follow this in a logical process: think is defined as:1. to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc. 2. to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation: Think carefully before you begin. and..... ra·tion·al is defined as: 1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development. 2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator. 3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational. 4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings. 5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty. ax·i·om is defined as.... 1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof. 2. a universally accepted principle or rule. and...... log·ic is defined as 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. and ...... Reason is defined as: the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences. sound judgment; good sense. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity. to think in a logical manner. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. Insanity is defined as the inability to reason. to not be able to discern right from wrong. Irrational. Sanity is defined as: the ability to reason. Have good judgement, good discretion, to discern right from wrong. Rational. Then intelligence is the ability to evaluate data and arrive at the most superior computation. That is to impartially evaluate data and arrive at the most superior computation. (honest thinking is thinking that is free from preconceived ideas, objective or scientific thinking) in·tel·li·gence is defined as: 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. Technical is defined as: 1.using terminology or treating subject matter in a manner peculiar to a particular field, as a writer or a book: a technical report. skilled in or familiar in a practical way with a particular art, trade, etc., as a person. 2. -of, pertaining to, or showing technique. Academic is defined as: learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality. Solopsism is therefore the lack of ability to establish axioms in the universe, then progress to logic, reason with axioms and then on to intelligence. Therefore based on the above factors of mental activity: solopsism is stupidity. In other words: solopsism is the inability to recognize, to identify, and understand and accept or agree to axioms, then think with logic, to sanely reason to evaluate data in the world around him, to arrive at the most superior computation ( which is that there is more to the universe than his own mind) So therefore solopsism is technically an academic word for stupidity. Or academic stupidity, Specialized extreme stupidity. Stupidity in regards to everything outside of one's own mind. Solopsism is the lack of ability to establish axioms in the universe, then progress to rationality, logic, reason and then on to intelligence. How do you get a true solopsist? Educate a stupid person. Education without understanding. Rote learning and rote education. I have a friend who is a perfect example of a solopsist, who inadvertently provides me with continual scrutiny or challenges on my thinking. If Scientology is the science of knowing how to know the truth of things...... Solopsism is the antonym of scientology. How to not know? The proper study and use of Scientology is at least the beginning of the cure for solopsism. David > From: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:36:30 -0700 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TROM1] Trom Digest, Vol 97, Issue 24 > > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] > ************ > > On Aug 6, 2012, at 11:09 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Aug 6, 2012, at 8:31 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> > >> On 06 August 2012 08:18, Paul Tipon wrote: > > >>> But then I still question if there really is a 'you' out there or is > >>> all of this just me and my magnificent imagination) > >>> > >> > >> Yes and it surprises me that there are not more of us solipsists. lol > >> > Oh yeah. You're one of those guys eh. ;-) Yes, I can see that > point but also think there are enough as it is. Now the funny thing > is that if you have any kind of an inkling that a Matrix, a virtual > environment actually exists ... There is a whole lot of data that > there is. Did you know that LRH was into this with his out of body > work? I know for myself that solipsis cannot be totally denied. It > explains too much both physically and scientifically. You know, all > of that mystic stuff that not even Ron talked about but in fact was > heavily into. There are mysteries and anamolies in science and of > the physical universe that only lend themselves to a solipsis > configuration to explain how 'that' can be. > > Yes, I can see where solipsism is in the here and now. It's just > that I'm to smart, knowing and can see across the heavens and Earth, > backward, forward and present. So I'm somewhere between all knowing > and not knowing at all. What an interesting spot, huh. Proof there > is with a skepticism and that it just may not be that way but it sure > can explain a lot when nothing else can. > > For me, I just know that it is true. I then look around and sure > nuff, there they are but know that I am not one of them but creepy, > that we all may be inhabiting a solipsis. It's just that people like > me (ahem!) can see above and beyond the solipsis while still playing > the solipsis game. In solipsis ragtime no less. > > >> To me the greatest evidence against solipsism is that there are so > >> many differing points of view each with its created ego which we > >> hold onto, > >> with our past, to hold onto the identity we created to interact with > >> others. Some call it ego. Preceding ego will be found the postulate > >> that created the identity "to be known". > > I agree that ego is a component. But then wouldn't an ego keep one > in solipsis when there actually might be a virtual reality but we're > not supposed to know that. And there you have it, the basic key ... > to know. Can we be so sure that we know all there is to know. Of > course not but then this is not an argument for solipsis but a > potentially possible situation. Just think, the MEST Universe could > possibly be a solipsis. > > So there we are once again. What is real for you is real for you and > it may not be real to anybody else. oops, how did I do that ??? now > I'm right back into solipsis. I thought I was climbing out of it, > out of a virtual and into something real. Now if I could only find > out which reality I'm lost in ............. > >> > >> Martin > > Paul/Level 5 in progress > _______________________________________________ > Trom mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
