Unless we take evidence-based thinking to mean that we take an appearance and narrow our expectations of future appearances based on that appearance. Not because this is a true or right way to do things, but just as an approach.

I agree, but this isn’t how the term “evidence” is understood conventionally.

Further, there is certainly some sense in the idea that we have mostly subconscious habits in our mind and that by observing the appearances we can become more conscious of how our subconscious habits are working (which we have the choice to change or not – but if we aren’t sure we want to throw the whole thing away then this evidentialist approach to our own subconscious habits can be beneficial). There is some sense in saying that we don’t fully understand our own intent and that by paying attention we can become more conscious of it.

I agree with this as well, but once again, conventionally people don’t take the experience of the world to be a message from their own subconscious mind to themselves.

When I have spoken before I have used a standard understanding/meaning of the term “evidence.”

That said, even with what you’re saying, evidence doesn’t work as one would typically expect, because while it may reveal something of your own will to you, it doesn’t keep your will there, so it doesn’t actually force meanings into your life. Normally when people think about “evidence” they think some inviolable meaning is forced into their life from appearances. But in this new interpretation it’s not like that anymore. Since it’s your own will, it’s not a meaning that’s inviolable, but rather, it’s a meaning you can change.

That our own intent is actually itself a probability-possibility-cloud whenever we aren’t conscious of it and that there are no ‘actual’ automatic subconscious habits and tendencies to discover or become conscious of, only ones we generate.

One’s will can in principle be in a committed or in a flexible state, and anywhere in between. The sky is the limit, so to speak.

It’s possible to start out with a heavily structured and steady commitment in one’s will and then to gradually relax that commitment later. So one’s condition of will can start with what you appear to have assumed it to be, and then end up with this latter description through your own purpose, if that is your purpose, of course.

Whatever you can conceive of, you can act on. You can intend whatever you conceive of.

Since you’re able to conceive of will this way, you can make your will resemble that conception.

There’s not automation or othering, just a vague cloud of what-you-might-be-doing, which is really just how-things-will-look-and-act-when-I-am-looking. Normally we think that breathing is usually unconscious and you can reprogram it by making it conscious and practicing new ways of breathing. This anti-subconscious view would suggest that ‘unconscious-breathing’ is non-breathing. It’s a blank to be filled in later when you go looking for it. But then how unconscious breathing habits could impact your life seems like nonsense. This is just one example. Most of life is lived subconsciously/habitually and edited with conscious practice when necessary.

I once had a mystical experience where I was suffocating and couldn’t breathe, and then it felt like my breathing snapped like a dry twig, like it broke as if it were a thing that could break, and then I felt no urge to breathe anymore. I wasn’t breathing and felt no need to breathe either. That experience is very much in line with what you describe here.

The important thing to remember is to not think “it’s like this because it isn’t like that.” All the possibilities should be included. If you can conceive of it, it’s possible and it should be included in one’s ultimate consideration, but one shouldn’t think of it as an “is.” It can be, but not is.

It’s precisely because appearances tell us of what can be and not what is that they cannot function as evidence in the conventional sense of “evidence.” Remember your post about appearances being purely hypothetical?

So you don’t think there’s a thing-in-itself that is your intent (especially your subconscious intent)?

Because whatever I discover is conditioned on my ongoing consent, it isn’t self-so, so not a thing-in-itself, no. “Thing-in-itself” is a thing on thing’s own terms, but that doesn’t exist and cannot be. I can only ever, even in principle, know things on my terms, and not on “thing’s” terms.

So the mind isn’t the ground of your reality/experience in your view?

It is, but it is neither objective nor fixated despite itself. If there is a fixation it can only exist so long as I consent to it. Once I become aware of my own fixations I can change them. What’s missing is a guarantee of stability. Stability is an option, but not a guarantee. However evidence-based thinking, as it is conventionally understood, leads one to believe one lives in a world with heavy guarantees that operate despite oneself, whether one likes these guarantees or not.

As long as you think you can be wildly surprised in your experiences because you may or may not fully understand their causes (i.e. the full subconscious complexity of your intent), then it’s definitely a good way of thinking imo.

If you say so. :) I mean, if you don’t see flaws in evidence-based thinking, then keep using it.

For me, personally, I see how evidence-based thinking is getting in the way of my most powerful magick. So I use evidence-based thinking as a kind of a game, without buying into it too much. I know “evidence” is a convention of the world, but I don’t let that convention stick very strongly to my heart and I always leave myself plenty of room to question the meanings of any and all appearances. This gives my own will much more room to work than it would otherwise have.

Do you think there’s a way you are that’s deeper than your conscious understanding of yourself that you can discover, or is that deeper (habitual/subconscious) self just a possibility cloud that you generate when you go looking? If the latter, then why go looking instead of just changing everything to the way you want it.

I can be temporarily overlooking something I am doing/intending. So I can be engaged in something and not realize I am engaged in that way, because it’s a matter of course, it is tacit. However, this condition isn’t permanent or inflexible or unintentional. Once I decide I don’t want to have dark subconscious areas in my mind, they gradually “float” (not literally) back up to conscious awareness.

So there is a background where something is unconsciously working to create and maintain people’s personalities.

That “something” is ultimately you. Othering is not real in the final analysis. It’s only nominal. You can relate to that “something” as not you, but it cannot be anything else, because there isn’t anything else like that and couldn’t be, even in principle. If there were something truly foreign (as opposed to nominally foreign), there’d be no way to gather information about it and interact with it.

Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-08-10 09:39:28 (dlej59r)