--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > > > This is from one of my favourite books, The Fabric of Reality > > by David Deutsch. He puts it better than I ever could. > > > > http://www.freivald.org/~jake/deutschOnSolipsism.html > > > Nicely put, but I still like my theory of > just punching the solipsist in the solar > plexus. You don't have to put up with nearly > as much self importance, and you can get back > to enjoying the mystery of creation *so* much > faster than actually arguing with a self that > believes that only it exists, simply because > it capitalizes the word Self. > > All theoretical arguments should start with > the words, "Pretend for a moment that reality > doesn't exist..." No thanks. I prefer cele- > brating its existence and its mystery, and > I've got no time for selves that are so afraid > of the concept of a joyfully unknowable reality > that they have come to believe that they created > it.
Your presentation presents a good example of why solipsism may be an insightful POV. You present a character (writing a play?) that appears so wrapped up in false notions, and baseless constructs, that his view actually appears to him as tangible reality. When indeed the foundation of such, is apparent to be vacuuous -- a vast regress of reflections, of false notions spinning out their little world, providing "juice" and foundation for more regress. IF there is a fundamental mistakes "of the intellect", an early buying into the standard view, then our notion of reality could feasibly be sand castles in the air. It all looks solid 500 layers above the "abyss", one falsehood layered upon another, feeding each other, -- but it may come crashing down when the foundations are examined. Why your character believes that a solipsist cannot celebrate all that stretches across the universe, adds texture to those seemingly intractable layers of smoke and mirrors. It certainly is plausible that real joy, real celebration cannot an does not occur until the foundations are seen for what they are and all is enjoyed and celebrated as "intimate", as intimate as ones (focused) notion of ones' self. And the deeper unrecognized paradox of your character -- that a solipsist creates his universe (a false notion)-- and yet is incapable of enjoying or celebrating it. And the response of this tangled mass is almost Bushian -- to strike out, hard and fast, with "shock and awe" at anything that differs from his own cozy world that IS a product of himself -- that he has created. The character is actually a solipsist of sorts -- per this characters false definition -- he has created his own world -- and like a fish in water, has no concept of water -- that is of anything outside of his little pond. Thanks for the great example. Its brilliant.
