For anyone else bothering to read this:
Given that you say you are god and that everyone else is too, exactly who "else" are you referring to?
I've been "engaging" with lightgigantic because I perceive that he/she is someone who has a quite fixed idea of what God "should be like".
For instance, his objection to my claim has basically been: "If you say you are God, you have to prove it. Or at least offer some kind of description."
You are getting ahead of yourself.
Before one can talk of proof one must first have some sort of outline of definitions for what is under scrutiny.
Otherwise you could just show a framed picture of an antelope as evidence of having smelled a rose.
But I've used ordinary experience (seeing, hearing) as my description. Apparently, lg believes
What?? How could anyone possibly know that?
sense activities always exist in relation to a sense object(s) (even if we are talking about the mind's capacity to fabricate/reenact sensory experiences).
OK so you say you have had the experience of seeing/hearing something that made you know you are god.
The next obvious questions are what is it that you saw/heard and what was it about these experiences that confirmed that you are god (and had merely forgotten this somewhat important fact)?
A dozen or so posts later and there is still nothing forthcoming from you .....
:shrug:
Then the example of an invisible picture . . . Some sort of attempt at reductio ad absurdum, or perhaps just ridicule.
It shows how, after negating whatever relationship ordinarily exists between the senses and the sense objects, one can use it as a blank canvas to say it is a picture (albeit an invisible one) of absolutely anything one imagines.
Along similar lines, you can say you are aldolph hitler, jesus, a giraffe or all three (or anything else you imagine) based on what you have seen and heard for as long as you hotly deny (or alternatively, shroud in a cloud of vagueness) the relationship these said personages draw between the senses and their objects ("meh .... its only
your book definition that a giraffe has an incredibly long neck ...")
My conclusion is that lg thinks seeing and hearing are ridiculous or absurd.
for as long as one insists on discussing them outside of/divorced from/bearing no relationship to their associated sense objects, it is
impossible for them to be anything
but absurd
:shrug:
This is lg's attempt to reassure himself (somehow), that the meanings he attributes to certain words are the only true ones
.
will the irony never end?
And still no attempt at answering a fairly simple question: How do you distinguish between what you are and what you experience?
Is there something wrong with this question? Is it a "trick" question?
As I said before, if you can't/won't say what you are and you can't/won't establish your experience in terms of the senses and the sense objects, all you are exercising is your imagination (which is, no doubt, the major muscle a solipsist utilizes)
Here's another one: Suppose there is a person somewhere on the planet who has never heard or read the word "God". Can that person experience God, or is that only possible once they know what the "standard definition" is? Does the question seem a little ridiculous?
If they are defeated by tooth aches and the like and can't establish their experience of "god" in any meaningful manner in contrast to when they didn't know such things I think they would be hard pressed to establish that they had any sort of experience at all .... or if they did, it certainly wasn't the experience of being god (outside of the linguistic hyperbole associated with cocaine use etc)
Suppose the person does experience God, and realises that that is "what they really are"? Do they now have "a position of employment" much like the president of the US, or a dentist?
assuming we are going by the book definitions of presidents holding some nationally appointed honorific position of power and a dentist being in some shape or form knowledgeable of practical medical issues of the teeth and gums, then yes, of course ..... but maybe that's being a bit exclusive with semiotics, huh?
I'm trying hard to not shake with laughter as I type this.
I'm trying to limit my use of: :shrug: 's