- cross-posted to:
- weirdway
- cross-posted to:
- weirdway
Talk more casually about SI here without having to make a formal post.
You must log in or register to comment.
“Discussion Thread”
Originally posted by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-07-26 10:25:28 (6pkgir).
Having a psychic energy model might be really effective as game rules to introduce Magick. Basically there’s some system of limited ‘psi energy’ accessible to everyone all the time, like sunlight for physical energy in physicalism. So people can collect this energy and fight over it as a source of ability to use Magick (both psychic awareness and psychic influence). This limits the ability for ordinary people to get arbitrarily powerful.
On its own this might be unappealing if you see that it would dramatically limit your own ability to perform magic. The answer is of course that you need to abandon metaphysical egalitarianism. You are god over this realm. All apparently external sources of psychic energy are ultimately rooted in you as an individual. You alone can create infinite psychic energy here. Thus you are unlimited in your magical potential while others are limited. This also allows you to grant extra magical energy to people you like. Breaking the egalitarianism would be a pretty tough thing I imagine.
This seems like a better system than trying to always manually manage what magic powers people are allowed to have and when or anything like that. What say you? Any thoughts of other magical models or systems you like? Tagging /u/mindseal because he’s been active lately but I welcome everyone’s thoughts.
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-09-20 11:41:45 (dn8qwoy)
Having a psychic energy model might be really effective as game rules to introduce Magick.
I would never use that model for myself. At best I could tolerate it, if it were not in my face, but if it were, I’d probably make a dent in it the same way I make a dent in physicalism.
There are some energy-like phenomena that happen, and I don’t have a problem discussing them using a subjective idealist way of thinking. I don’t need to actually believe there is actual energy somewhere. There is will. That’s enough of “energy” for me.
On its own this might be unappealing if you see that it would dramatically limit your own ability to perform magic. The answer is of course that you need to abandon metaphysical egalitarianism. You are god over this realm. All apparently external sources of psychic energy are ultimately rooted in you as an individual. You alone can create infinite psychic energy here. Thus you are unlimited in your magical potential while others are limited.
As a subjective idealism user I never compete or contend with the others anyway (or at least do my best to train that way… so if I catch myself trying to compete I have a little chat with myself about it). I can assist anyone on their way to realizing their own Godhood, and if they do something I don’t like, they simply diverge from my point of reference into their own reality. In other words, I never experience Gods who go against me, because all such Gods decohere from my realm. I don’t slap my own face.
So I don’t have to limit others to keep myself safe.
At the same time, I don’t want to be a nanny to others and the others tend to limit themselves faaaar more effectively than I could limit them unless I deliberately used some grand social-universe-shaping magick to limit people’s magickal abilities, which I don’t do.
I also don’t want to constantly and uncontrollably run into huge communities of these “energy” people who use that sort of language. So if the energy beliefs remain a niche that I can avoid and pretend it’s not there, that’s fine for me. Otherwise I’d have to dent it to make space for myself.
For now I try to conversationally help (meaning, I just talk to people and don’t use magick on them to give them understanding by an act of will) people to understand their own minds and their magickal abilities. The problem is, it’s not that easy, lol. When I talk to people there is an allowance for both outcomes: they understand, and they don’t understand. Had I been using will, I’d be asserting that people now understand magick, and there is no option for “they don’t understand” then.
Basically to me it’s not fun to try to force every little detail. I want a world that for the most part takes care of itself while also serving as a good, supportive platform for my endeavors. If things get really bad, I will take magickal action. Otherwise I just go with the flow much of the time. I don’t find it useful or interesting to try to insert myself into every little detail and try to manipulate those little details. I don’t want to get bogged down with trivialities and minutia.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-21 00:31:16 (dn9ft1t)
There are some energy-like phenomena that happen, and I don’t have a problem discussing them using a subjective idealist way of thinking. I don’t need to actually believe there is actual energy somewhere. There is will. That’s enough of “energy” for me.
This makes me think you may be thinking about something different than what I’m proposing. I’m not thinking of the ‘energy’ as a mediating substance to act on to create magical events. Instead, I’m thinking of it as a ‘spiritual power source’ for ordinary beings to seek out, to allow them to do belief-shifting, intent-centered magic. The only function of this would be to (a) allow other beings magical powers while (b) preventing them from being able to arbitrarily alter your world in dramatic ways without limit when your back is turned. If there’s a different way to accomplish this without using the psychic-energy-source concept, then I’d gladly prefer it.
As a subjective idealism user I never compete or contend with the others anyway (or at least do my best to train that way… so if I catch myself trying to compete I have a little chat with myself about it). I can assist anyone on their way to realizing their own Godhood, and if they do something I don’t like, they simply diverge from my point of reference into their own reality. In other words, I never experience Gods who go against me, because all such Gods decohere from my realm. I don’t slap my own face.
Well, first, you don’t have to ultimately compete with others. You can compete and contend with others a lot within the domain of some limitations to which you are committed. Second, if there are others at all, then unless you have a stranglehold on their actions they are probably going to be doing things you don’t like sometimes. Some of this is even potentially valuable and interesting. So the question is, how do you make sure these sprouting gods either (a) always use their magic the way you want or (b) die (“disappear from your reality”) if they diverge too far? What constitutes too far? How would you know? How is that line drawn? How does this work?
So I don’t have to limit others to keep myself safe.
Well, the limit is that they use magic in a way you like or they die/disappear from your reality from your POV, right? The question is how far is far enough to make them diverge to their own reality from their POV and die from your POV?
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-09-21 04:39:01 (dn9tpuh)
This makes me think you may be thinking about something different than what I’m proposing. I’m not thinking of the ‘energy’ as a mediating substance to act on to create magical events. Instead, I’m thinking of it as a ‘spiritual power source’ for ordinary beings to seek out, to allow them to do belief-shifting, intent-centered magic. The only function of this would be to (a) allow other beings magical powers while (b) preventing them from being able to arbitrarily alter your world in dramatic ways without limit when your back is turned. If there’s a different way to accomplish this without using the psychic-energy-source concept, then I’d gladly prefer it.
I don’t know how that would work. You might need to be the first one to develop something like that if you’re interested in such things. To me it sounds strange and contradictory. I don’t understand how one’s ability to intend can be rationed by some external force/rule/etc. I mean if I believed that it was rationed, I guess I would experience that, but why would I believe such a thing? Maybe you can convince or create beings who believe such things for your own amusement or learning.
I think in some sense there is already a limitation to intent, and that is one’s own prior intent in the form of prior habits and commitment. This limitation, however, does not square what one wants to do against what the others want to do. It only squares one’s old world-habit against one’s freshly intended world-habit.
So the question is, how do you make sure these sprouting gods either (a) always use their magic the way you want or (b) die (“disappear from your reality”) if they diverge too far? What constitutes too far? How would you know? How is that line drawn? How does this work?
It’s easy for me. Do I have to spell it out? :) Can’t you just think of it like in like 5 seconds? It’s actually pretty simple.
Tell me, how do you draw the lines between trees and grass, the earth and the sky, and how do you determine how many and where to put the dream characters when you dream? Do you need to have a complex master plan every time you go to bed?
Well, the limit is that they use magic in a way you like or they die/disappear from your reality from your POV, right?
They don’t necessarily die.
Think about the meaning of the word “die.” It refers to an evolution of an identity that stops. However, if every possible version of an identity exists, what is “die”? Even if some evolutionary lines have stopped, there are versions that didn’t stop. Every possibility exists in potential. So a would-be contending God exists in the form of having subdued me or having bent me to their will. There is another version of that God which exists in a condition of being bent to my will. And so on. There are infinities of these versions. I choose what I experience. If I believe I have to kill someone or something, I must believe that the identity lineage is something unique and solid. But if I don’t believe in that, then killing either makes no sense at all, or it becomes a purely ornamental illusory word, like what happens in movies when characters “die”. When a movie character dies, the most important consequence is that they’re simply not mentioned again as something more than a memory.
It’s like killing a thought. If you stop thinking it, it’s a dead thought. But of course you conceivably could start thinking it again as well. So it’s not dead. In truth nothing really lives or dies. To say something is alive or that it dies is purely a matter of convention.
All control is self-control. If I believe something is truly external or is produced by something that isn’t me, then I cannot control it. But if I believe it’s either myself or my product, I do with it what I do with say my thoughts or my arms. Then the only limit to this is former habits and commitments which may be to the contrary in some way.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-21 21:04:56 (dnawzku)
It’s easy for me. Do I have to spell it out? :) Can’t you just think of it like in like 5 seconds? It’s actually pretty simple.
Tell me, how do you draw the lines between trees and grass, the earth and the sky, and how do you determine how many and where to put the dream characters when you dream? Do you need to have a complex master plan every time you go to bed?
OK, so you are taking a very unilateral view here, as opposed to the multilateral view which would maintain independent, unitary, free apparent other personalities. That makes things a little clearer. But not entirely.
My question now is not particularly unique to personalities. It’s more general. And it’s two things. (a) The idea that the world will automatically on your own conform to your desires is a programmed subconscious model. Why pursue conscious magical power if you can just make everything come to you and happen automatically, subconsciously? In a way it’s almost the opposite of unilateralism where you make the whole world conscious instead of just changing the automatic programming, isn’t it?
Second, how do you make that stable or meaningful. You know, I have standardized expectations about how the world works that keep it stable. You’re suggesting that basically you would standardize the expectation that the world will manifest in ways that satisfy your desires (that they wouldn’t deviate too far from those desires, anyway) as your desires change. Seems like a highly volatile world. Somehow it seems problematic. Like there would be a lack of continuity or stability. And if you want continuity and stability, then it seems to me that those two may inherently be obstacles to others desires you may have (i.e. to have the world to manifest what you want often may require discontinuity and destabilization, creating contradictory intent and frustration). And I guess that’s what I’m saying. We are already manifesting what we want. It’s just that a big part of what we want is stability and continuity and identity and friendship. Also, like maybe I’m impulsive and can’t be trusted to have total power 100% of the time? Think of the damage I could do. Stable beliefs also protect that.
I mean, it’s hard to have any sense of the idea of a ‘world’ in either the all-conscious unilateral model or the programmed-everything-you-desire-world subconscious model. Do you disagree?
They don’t necessarily die.
Think about the meaning of the word “die.” It refers to an evolution of an identity that stops. However, if every possible version of an identity exists, what is “die”? Even if some evolutionary lines have stopped, there are versions that didn’t stop. Every possibility exists in potential. So a would-be contending God exists in the form of having subdued me or having bent me to their will. There is another version of that God which exists in a condition of being bent to my will. And so on. There are infinities of these versions. I choose what I experience. If I believe I have to kill someone or something, I must believe that the identity lineage is something unique and solid. But if I don’t believe in that, then killing either makes no sense at all, or it becomes a purely ornamental illusory word, like what happens in movies when characters “die”. When a movie character dies, the most important consequence is that they’re simply not mentioned again as something more than a memory.
It’s like killing a thought. If you stop thinking it, it’s a dead thought. But of course you conceivably could start thinking it again as well. So it’s not dead. In truth nothing really lives or dies. To say something is alive or that it dies is purely a matter of convention.
All control is self-control. If I believe something is truly external or is produced by something that isn’t me, then I cannot control it. But if I believe it’s either myself or my product, I do with it what I do with say my thoughts or my arms. Then the only limit to this is former habits and commitments which may be to the contrary in some way.
Right, so you’re looking at this through a unilateral lens, not a multilateral lens as I was. I get you now. The above thoughts are what are relevant.
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-09-22 11:18:24 (dnc3hpw)
And it’s two things. (a) The idea that the world will automatically on your own conform to your desires is a programmed subconscious model. Why pursue conscious magical power if you can just make everything come to you and happen automatically, subconsciously? In a way it’s almost the opposite of unilateralism where you make the whole world conscious instead of just changing the automatic programming, isn’t it?
Mind is one, and the conscious and subconscious aspect are actually one single process. Nominally we distinguish the conscious and the subconscious and experientially these can often be useful distinctions, but in my view it’s critical to realize that such distinctions are not completely true. So it makes no sense to over-rely on such descriptions and take them as dogmas.
Conscious practice demonstrates how the mind works. If you know how your mind works subconsciously, it means you cannot make conscious use of that knowledge and that knowledge can then act as a rogue knowledge, not working in favor of your best vision.
However, through copious conscious practice one gains understanding of both the conscious and the subconscious aspect and then, after much enlightenment, one can repurpose the subconscious processing to make it fit their ideal vision better.
So everything is important and everything fits together nicely. There are no conflicts and no waste. Conscious practice doesn’t go to waste, and subconscious activity is not overlooked or discarded or wasted. Nothing is wasted. Everything is utilized.
Second, how do you make that stable or meaningful. You know, I have standardized expectations about how the world works that keep it stable.
And how did you make those stable?
Somehow it seems problematic. Like there would be a lack of continuity or stability.
I think this calls for introspection, not discussion. I have no desire to try to shape your mind or to convince you. What you bring up is a challenging question and it has a surprising answer, but I don’t want to lay it out.
Right, so you’re looking at this through a unilateral lens, not a multilateral lens as I was. I get you now. The above thoughts are what are relevant.
I don’t wrestle with Gods. I can entertain multilateral modes as game modes and not as truths, but in those game modes there are no Gods there. So there is nothing to worry about in the grand scheme of things. Of course to the extent one cherishes the body and wants to experience certain outcomes, in the context of there seemingly being experience beyond one’s control, there will still be fears and so on. That’s expected. That’s why no matter how grand the concept, real practice is often gradual. The way to apply the grand concepts is not always so amazing. It can be, but not always.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-22 11:37:48 (dnc4dvw)
And it’s two things. (a) The idea that the world will automatically on your own conform to your desires is a programmed subconscious model. Why pursue conscious magical power if you can just make everything come to you and happen automatically, subconsciously? In a way it’s almost the opposite of unilateralism where you make the whole world conscious instead of just changing the automatic programming, isn’t it?
In a way my whole line of questioning here is not useful. I think I’m thinking about this in a clearer, more pleasant (for me) way now. Incoming for whatever seems like what I want to say.
The question at root here is the same one I’m grappling with in general. I see your perspective. You’re looking at total conscious power reclamation, unilateral absorption of all ‘othered’ subconscious reality into consciousness/ego. The reason I was discussing the psychic energy model is simple. I’m looking at ways to bring magic into my world while still maintaining some sense of a stable ‘othered’ subconscious world and also limiting the powers of others. Right? So, if I absorb people and the world more into my consciousness and become more of a divine magical/spiritual traveler like you envision between infinite dream realms, then yes I get more power over them but I also lose the stability and the connectivity to others. So I was looking for a way to allow a still stable world where others can still do magic. Of course the psychic energy model I mentioned would just be my little longer-term game I was playing on reality, much like physicalism is a longer term game I have been playing on reality (as opposed to something more like your unilateralism which would involve a lot more short games moving from one abstract structuring perspective to another rapidly). I mean, another option would be to just set a rule like ‘individuals can only do magic that broadly fits within my general desires and will, and other than that can only act like physicalists’ which would be a bit more authoritarian/controlling and put a bit more ‘godlihood’ on myself relative to others in the stable world. I guess I was also looking for something that would also allow me to at least ostensibly play as a member of the limited magical conventional so I could be a co-equal part of a group (egalitarian).
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-09-22 13:41:58 (dnc9wuv)
The question at root here is the same one I’m grappling with in general. I see your perspective. You’re looking at total conscious power reclamation, unilateral absorption of all ‘othered’ subconscious reality into consciousness/ego. The reason I was discussing the psychic energy model is simple. I’m looking at ways to bring magic into my world while still maintaining some sense of a stable ‘othered’ subconscious world and also limiting the powers of others. Right?
OK, but what I am doing is not a zero sum game. In other words, it’s not that I reclaim all power. I only reclaim power that was previously used to slap my face. That’s the power I return back to myself. In other words, if I gain power it doesn’t mean you or someone else has to lose it. What if you’re my ally? Maybe I want the both of us to gain power at the expense of whatever was slapping the both of us in our faces. It’s not always so rigid. There is plenty of flexibility and while absolute firmness is an option, it is not always necessary to use that option consciously.
It’s possible to have a conclave of Gods and not butt heads. However, if some head-butting develops, then to each participating God such head-butting is readily optional. This easily readily available optionality that covers a huge experiential range is why they’re called “Gods.” So it’s not even that Gods cannot ever experience other Gods butting heads with them, it’s just that if that’s what they wanted, they’d have to explicitly sign up for that experience, assuming they’re at the peak of their Godly powers.
So, if I absorb people and the world more into my consciousness and become more of a divine magical/spiritual traveler like you envision between infinite dream realms, then yes I get more power over them but I also lose the stability and the connectivity to others.
Hehehe… Here you go again with losing stability. OK, here’s why you think you will lose stability. You think stability is a feature of the world, and if you make the world more available to your conscious will, then it will lose stability. So either stability is in the world, or it’s nowhere. The problem is that this conception of stability is not actually true. Should I go on?
I mean, another option would be to just set a rule like ‘individuals can only do magic that broadly fits within my general desires and will, and other than that can only act like physicalists’ which would be a bit more authoritarian/controlling and put a bit more ‘godlihood’ on myself relative to others in the stable world.
Isn’t there already, in a sense, a rule like that in your world? People cannot try to hurt you or rob you without facing significant consequences from both you (allowed by law as self-defense) and the law (in the form of cops, courts, prisons, and other bureaucracies). So in other words, that general desire to preclude the possibility of things getting too out of hand, that’s already a heavily operating will in your world, right? Of course normally, as a physicalist (perhaps in your past) you wouldn’t believe you did all that, and you’d think it was “just like that, luckily.” But at the same time you’ve heard stories of your ancestors struggling for justice, so you know on some level it wasn’t “just like that luckily” but something related to you (your ancestors) made it that way, volitionally, on purpose.
So what I am trying to say is, maybe, what you want is already being taken care of subconsciously. But perhaps you want to make it more conscious and decide on some magickal laws or magickal conventions. The sky is the limit. Insofar I am your ally, I myself may not be actively involved in such things. I would just assist from the sideline or non-interfere, or some such. Frankly my ideas in regards to such matters (like how to ration magick and how to settle the magickal disputes) might not even be any good anyway. It’s not exactly a topic I think about every day. I have general clues about this sort of stuff, but to me the whole thing is a non-issue, but that’s also probably because I’m practicing mostly alone now. If you’re practicing in a group, maybe it’s more of an issue for you.
I guess I was also looking for something that would also allow me to at least ostensibly play as a member of the limited magical conventional so I could be a co-equal part of a group (egalitarian).
My present feeling right now, which can change, is that conventionally I support science, even with some measure of physicalism, but not too crusty and not overly bombastic physicalism, because I don’t want to be oppressed by the scientific views and their consequences too much. So to me magick is something I do and a tiny group of people, and since that group is so tiny right now, and for the most part should not participate in public policy (at least not as open mages), it’s not a serious issue.
I think once I get much better at my own magick I may start getting bored doing magick alone. But I am not bored yet. I don’t want to proselytize the views we’re talking about and most of all I don’t want anything I talk about to become a religion.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-22 14:35:48 (dncc0cq)
How would you reconcile omnipotence and companionship with conventional beings? Do you think the difference would bother you in anyway? Do you think it might affect your relationships?
I bet Bill Gates sometimes yearns for someone who is an “equal”. Someone who is as powerful as he is, as rich as he is. And there are people in the world who exist that can rival his power, whether they are billionaires or politicians or whoever. But most of the people he comes into contact with are not quite as rich and powerful as he is. Even in his inner circle, I bet there’s a hierarchy. He could be the kindest, most generous, most friendly guy and that unspoken power hierarchy will still be present. I wonder if he sometimes wishes that he could be ‘normal’.
Let’s say an omnipotent entity is travelling and comes across a community of people. He socialises with them and has a fun time. He decides to stay there for a while and creates close friendships with 2 people. He knows that he could leave that world forever if he chooses and move on. He also knows he can bend that world to his will if he wished. His two friends aren’t privy to that knowledge, they are just conventional beings.
The entity grows to really like his two new friends and wishes that they could accompany him. But the power difference is so large, these two people would get ripped apart if they traversed beyond their realm and they would probably emotionally and mentally suffer a lot. It would be like taking 1000 doses of DMT in a row, it would completely destroy them.
The entity also feels strange when he hangs out with his friends. He knows something they don’t and it bothers him greatly. And even if he told them and revealed his power to them, he would still feel weird because of the massive power difference. If your friend revealed they had god-like superpowers, would your reaction to them change? It certainly would.
The entity knows that if he wants to be life long companions with these 2 people, he needs to help them along with their own spiritual journey and make them equals.
If you were in the position of this entity, would you make them equals? Let’s say that you really like your new friends and enjoy their company and you want them to be individuals with their own agency, even if it means that they’ll eventually part ways with you. Would you want to bring them onto your level?
Or would you seek your friends in an alternate universe where they have already reached “godhood”? Thus eliminating any “mentor-student” relationship and allowing you to see them as true equals. How would you reconcile the fact that you manifested them? Would it still feel authentic? Or would you not even entertain the idea of having equals?
And finally, if you ever came across an “equal” in your travels (a subjective idealist or some sort of enlightened spiritual practitioner) through pure chance, as in you never manifested an encounter, and you ended up really enjoying their company, would you join up with them or leave them behind and move on alone?
Originally commented by u/Green-Moon on 2017-09-23 21:22:45 (dne6vfr)
Your post just reminded me of this great song. When I heard it a few years ago and heard the line “i use the magick to glo”, I had no idea what it meant, but now everything in that song makes so much sense, hilariously so.
Anyways, your post brings up the whole “world-sharing” topic; whether or not there actually are any “other beings”, in the way you speak of them. I like to think of myself as just an open space of awareness, as shown in this model.
In regards to others, I wouldn’t assume that anything other than what you’ve experienced yourself has any kind of agency or awareness separate from you. Maybe “others” are given a sort of artificial awareness, to make the illusion more convincing, but ultimately, I wouldn’t spend much time or effort worrying about others, that sort of goes against the whole “subjective experience” viewpoint. I would ask /u/mindseal for his/her take on “others” but I think it’s best just to treat experience like a RPG game (here’s another model relating to that idea)
Originally commented by u/WrongStar on 2017-09-25 09:22:49 (dngmdqx)
“i use the magick to glo”, I had no idea what it meant, but now everything in that song makes so much sense, hilariously so.
lmao
I wouldn’t assume that anything other than what you’ve experienced yourself has any kind of agency or awareness separate from you. Maybe “others” are given a sort of artificial awareness, to make the illusion more convincing, but ultimately, I wouldn’t spend much time or effort worrying about others
That’s one perspective you could take. However the thing about subjective idealism is one has the choice to choose what they want to experience. I’m currently dabbling in solipsism but I see it as a tool, a means to an end or even just an experiment out of pure curiosity. Once I reach my final state, I’ll probably drop it.
Solipsism isn’t your only option. If you wanted to, you could choose to experience other “minds” just like yourself, with their own agency and will, completely independent of yourself.
If one mind can arise within awareness, why can’t two or more exist? The awareness that embodies these minds is the same awareness, and this is the awareness or “open space” you are identifying with. If you’ve ever had a dream of being a different person, you might realize that the awareness of it is constant throughout both waking, deep sleep and dream life. That awareness never changes. However the content of the experience will be different and that content can dictate whether you feel like entity 1 or entity 204.
So if entity 1 can have agency, couldn’t entity 204 also have agency as well? What is stopping both entity 1 and entity 204 from existing simultaneously, seeing as both arise in awareness? Solipsism may feel absolute when you identify entity 1 as being the only mind or intelligence arising in awareness. But what law states that only one mind/intelligence can arise in awareness? Why should awareness only experience itself through one mind?
I probably didn’t explain it well, but this link explains it much better.
Another thing to think about. Think back to when you were still a hardcore physicalist, viewing other minds as being 100% real. Would you say your current view somehow renders that invalid?
If you think about yourself as the person you were 8 years ago (assuming you were a hardcore phyiscalist then), then the people that existed were 100% real to you. You treated them as real and in your mind, they were real people, real minds with their own agency.
So you do have options here. You can choose to believe that solipsism was always real, regardless of what you thought about others in the past. Or you can choose to voluntarily adopt solipsism as a tool which might imply that you somehow shifted away from these “other minds”. I wrote this in a hurry, so there might be some things not worded properly, I’ll try and fix it later if they exist.
Originally commented by u/Green-Moon on 2017-09-25 12:03:21 (dngu1z3)
Well, I’m not exactly a subscriber to solipsism (first time hearing the term). I’m still a bit new to all this so was just trying bounce some ideas around and see what other views there are.
But if we understand the idea that reality is consciousness/awareness taking the form of experiences, then we really can’t stray too far off from the truth. That being, the only fundamental truth is awareness itself. Everything else under the umbrella of possibility is true/false in a relative sense. So, things like what we are talking about now, come down to choice. Whether or not it’s one we remember or a long forgotten one of the past, it still is a choice. Re-reading what you wrote at the end there, I’m seeing that we’re ultimately saying the same thing :)
Also in regards to Rupert Spira, I’m wondering if you’ve ever heard of Greg Goode as well. His books ‘Standing as Awareness’ and ‘The Direct Path’ got me started on all this, and that’s what connected me to Rupert Spira. I even see he’s listed in the ‘friends’ tab of the website you linked, so if you’re looking for a good read, check him out
Originally commented by u/WrongStar on 2017-09-26 21:28:01 (dniz6do)
That being, the only fundamental truth is awareness itself. Everything else under the umbrella of possibility is true/false in a relative sense. So, things like what we are talking about now, come down to choice.
I agree. There’s a lot of choices and options available to you and that’s the beauty of it.
ever heard of Greg Goode as well. His books ‘Standing as Awareness’ and ‘The Direct Path’ got me started on all this,
Ah yeah, Greg Goode is a boss. I’ve read his “Standing as Awareness” book but I’ve not read his “Direct Path”. Really helpful book though, his explanations are cutting edge and very easy to understand. In fact I should probably check out his “Direct Path” book for a quick mental brush up.
Originally commented by u/Green-Moon on 2017-09-26 22:43:42 (dnj1o84)
That’s one perspective you could take. However the thing about subjective idealism is one has the choice to choose what they want to experience. I’m currently dabbling in solipsism but I see it as a tool, a means to an end or even just an experiment out of pure curiosity. Once I reach my final state, I’ll probably drop it.
Solipsism isn’t your only option. If you wanted to, you could choose to experience other “minds” just like yourself, with their own agency and will, completely independent of yourself.
I emphatically agree with all this.
The whole point of subjective idealism is to broaden the awareness of the various possible intents one could engage in. It’s to open up the horizon, or to point out a sky beyond the sky. If someone walks away thinking “solipsism is the only way” then I am afraid they completely missed the boat. Subjective idealism allows for solipsism and in some specific ways solipsism is powerful, but if it becomes restricted to only solipsism that in my view is no longer the real subjective idealism anymore. Subjective idealism is a more general understanding that intents produce experiential results. That’s it. If one intends to relate to experience as purely private, there is a concomitant experiential range for that, and one can cultivate insights and skills inside that range. But just as easily a person can intend that there are minds, spaces or even things outside themselves and that they’re independent, and in accordance with that intent, there is also a corresponding experiential range. It is possible to cultivate insights and skills inside those ranges.
The only common denominator for subjective idealism is that you cannot claim that you’re irrelevant in the manner your experience happens. So if a subjective idealist intends to experience an independent space of some sort, and they’re saying it’s only independent because they intend that it is and will relate to it in that way, then they’re a true subjective idealist still. So as long as one acknowledges that experience is profoundly volitional in an intimate sense, one is a subjective idealist already. From there the field is wide open as to how specifically curate one’s own willing/knowing/experiencing.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-25 12:19:02 (dnguu6r)
Agreed.
Originally commented by u/Green-Moon on 2017-09-25 21:08:11 (dnh93ju)
Let’s say an omnipotent entity is travelling and comes across a community of people. He socialises with them and has a fun time. He decides to stay there for a while and creates close friendships with 2 people. He knows that he could leave that world forever if he chooses and move on. He also knows he can bend that world to his will if he wished. His two friends aren’t privy to that knowledge, they are just conventional beings.
The entity grows to really like his two new friends and wishes that they could accompany him. But the power difference is so large, these two people would get ripped apart if they traversed beyond their realm and they would probably emotionally and mentally suffer a lot. It would be like taking 1000 doses of DMT in a row, it would completely destroy them.
The entity also feels strange when he hangs out with his friends. He knows something they don’t and it bothers him greatly. And even if he told them and revealed his power to them, he would still feel weird because of the massive power difference. If your friend revealed they had god-like superpowers, would your reaction to them change? It certainly would.
An omnipotent entity would either declare those 2 friends as “powerful enough” and by virtue of this declaration it would become true for all intents and purposes of that entity. Alternatively, this entity would never get lonely in the first place, because it would routinely encounter people like itself, at an appropriate power level, because that’s the entity’s will, and it being omnipotent, as it wills, so it is.
Basically an omnipotent entity has arbitrary tuning of anything and everything. There are no problems that remains problems for long.
For an omnipotent entity a problem is when they change how they want their experience to be, but didn’t get around to actually changing their experience yet. And being able to contemplate possibilities without those contemplations spilling out into the protected domain of experience is part of omnipotence too.
Although I have to say it’s weird to call an omnipotent being “an entity.” It’s like attributing will and life to a body, just as wrong in the final analysis. I would refer to something as an entity when I regard it as distinct from myself and as being “out there.” When I regard myself I am not en entity to myself. Just like to myself I am also not a body or anything other concrete and optional.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-24 16:45:54 (dnfhzj7)
If I ever did come across such beings, I think I would help them along but ultimately leave it up to them to decide. I’m not in the business of subjugating other conscious beings, but I’m open to helping them and giving ideas to them. It would be their choice to come along or even participate in any of this.
Originally commented by u/Green-Moon on 2017-09-25 12:11:34 (dngugc6)
I think mostly the same way, except if someone or something crosses one of my red lines, I will take a decisive measure. I want to be kind but not squishy.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-25 12:24:39 (dngv276)
[deleted]
Originally commented by u/[deleted] on 2017-10-10 12:32:09 (do5edx8)
So, I’ve been trying to adopt the subjective idealist view, but my materialist mindset is struggling to accept it. I’m very close to fully adopting the idealist part. I can’t see how physicality could ever be fundamental. But the subjective part is a bit harder to accept. All sorts of questions and possibilities come into mind to try to negate the idea that this is not an objective world.
So you’re saying a way of thinking that changes even the very fundamental assumptions you’ve come to fully rely on, assumptions that by now you rely on instinctively, is hard to adopt?
For example, most occultists view their mind as entirely private, unless they make it otherwise. But I don’t see this as being true. I’ve looked deeply into technological progress, and I am very convinced that within a decade or so, we will have brain/mind reading technology that will allow “others” to know what you are thinking of, what you are visualizing, etc. Yes, perhaps through will, you will be able to occlude your thoughts from being viewed, but I’d venture out to say that most occultists will not have the capability to do this.
In the view of subjective idealism your will has the power to shape your experiential reality. So what you’re talking about here is not merely a prediction, but possibly your will. If that’s the case, you may experience something like that, but that wouldn’t prove you were right in some objective sense. It would only be you creating an amenable experiential reality for yourself. If you were using subjective idealism as your understanding, you’d also then realize some very different types of worlds could also be attainable with different kinds of commitments and mind training.
I like privacy. So I will directly break any dream that disrupts that value. In my projected timeline there will not be any tech that can read minds. I’m just not interested. Travel to the stars? Sure. Getting the innards of my mind uncontrollably plastered to some website? No thanks. Even physicalism has gotten so bad that I am now canceling it. Why would I want a really bad feature of physicalism such as mind reading through the brain to be allowed to stay?
But even dreams will be fully recorded, and you and “others” will be able to view them through your computer like a movie.
That won’t happen. It doesn’t have any utility anyway, once you really think about it. Even photographs and videos are crap. If anything, photographs and videos allow people to stay at home more while satisfying their senses with visions of variety as if they’re traveling. My long term plan is to become fully self-powered to the point where I will go and do whatever I want, ignoring all else, even other Gods, never mind people, etc. Like in a lucid dream, I do anything, and recording it is not what I want, but living it all the time is what I want. I don’t want to reminisce. I want to live. Reminiscing is basically death and any tech that encourages and supports reminiscing is a life-denying tech that promotes conservatism and stubborn backward trends. So I am against all that at a very deep level. I’m not so fanatical that I want to tear down every photograph, hell no. But all that sort of tech is super-low value. Totally not worth my time. I don’t dream about it for sure. All this recording tech is not at all in my visions of the future.
If your mind is potentially not solely under your control, how do you guys reconcile subjective idealism with these possibilities?
This is a dumb question. It’s like asking if subjective idealism is potentially wrong, how do you think subjective idealism can be defended? It’s nonsense. If subjective idealism is somehow wrong, it’s just wrong. There is no point in defending it then. Of course it’s not wrong. :) So there is no problem.
There are other future technologies that complicate things, such as, the possibility of “mind uploading” and conscious artificial intelligence. I’m not convinced the former is possible, but the latter probably is.
It’s all nonsense. I don’t worry about it at all. Even if it were possible it would be irrelevant. I mean, it’s possible for me to stick a fork in my thigh. I don’t think about it. It’s not on my mind a lot. It’s irrelevant.
When I think about the future, cognitive upgrades, superintelligent machines, etc, I feel a bit disempowered.
Empower yourself! Stop letting the way things appear govern your life and intent. You know better than that by now. Empower yourself.
Understand this: no one wants you to be empowered. The more power you have, the less others around you will have. No one wants you to be powerful! They won’t help you. No one will help you. If you want empowerment you have to empower yourself. It’s fucking scary to be surrounded by powerful entities. Just the idea of others reading your mind is scary right? You don’t want that. You don’t want other people to become more powerful than you. Flip this around. They don’t want you to be more powerful than them. So that means if you want power you have to seek independence. You cannot wait for people to help you. It won’t happen.
Basically people will help you on the minimum condition that this won’t degrade their own abilities to pursue their visions. Think how scared most people are of everything. They’re scared of diseases, of crime, of poverty, of natural disasters, of political instability, etc. With a frightened chicken mentality that most people have, what sort of help do you think they will render in terms of empowering you? It’s a huge mistake to wait for the frightened chickens to help you get empowered. No way. They will instead create technologies of control and subservience that will keep people under control and suppress them. That’s what fear does. They’ll agree to become suppressed as long as everyone else is also suppressed. That’s how fear works. That’s how people will “help” you. Think carefully.
It seems anything can happen in the “future.” Things that can undermine personal power.
Subjective idealism agrees with the idea that anything can happen in the future, but not with the idea that anything will happen in the future. Will overrides can. Will/Intent > possibilities. Possibilities are infinite but only one specific scenario happens. Which one? The one you intend to happen (consciously or not). So infinite possibilities are not frightening to a subjective idealist who is well practiced. They’re simply the space within which we operate our ships as captains. The ship that you operate is your perspective. Your perspective contains the totality of your present knowledge and experience along with how that relates to other possibilities. Your perspective also contains a direction, a teleological vision you’re moving toward, be it consciously or not. Even something like “more of the same” can also be your teleology.
Instead of worrying what the future may or may not be like, consciously walk toward a future you want to be in.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-10-10 21:26:20 (do5w9aa)
[deleted]
Originally commented by u/[deleted] on 2017-10-11 01:18:12 (do64g78)
Arguably, there are already many technologies that we should want to remove from our experience. Simpletons have access to guns and nuclear weapons.
Those don’t bother me at all.
So, even in a world full of mind-reading technology, we should, in theory, be able to prevent our minds from being read, while everyone else is getting the contents of their minds exposed by the mind-reading device.
The distinction you’re missing is that short of a nerf gun and a water pistol there is no ostensibly friendly way to get shot from a gun. With mind reading the situation can be different as the act of having your mind read can be advertised as ostensibly a service, and perhaps many idiots will volunteer for that. That’s the problem.
I will not bother to show you “proof” that the technology needed to do this is already in its embryonic stage. But I wouldn’t say it has no utility. Dream recording will be the first step. Eventually, there’ll be devices that give people maximum lucidity in their dreams, and eventually, as these devices connect different minds together, there will be shared dreaming.
All this is perfect nonsense as far as I am concerned. I’ve already experienced shared dreaming and sharing a dream is a matter of will rather than tech. It’s always like that. If you believe that you don’t want it but the tech comes over and takes over anyway, you have a run-away unconscious volition that you’re not getting a handle on. This is similar to having a nightmare, which is also volitional. In other words, just because all experience is volitional it doesn’t mean you won’t ever project some fears for yourself to experience and fuck yourself up with. The only way to really avoid such episodes is to cultivate wisdom and practice using your will consciously all the time, and keep practicing bringing any unconscious tendencies you may have under the light of your own conscious awareness so that you can understand yourself and your process of visioning better.
The only downside is that technology disempowers them by having them think they cannot do such things without technology.
That’s a major downside indeed. There are other downsides. Technology of this kind (as opposed to magick tech) is also a product of collective activity and it tends to be related to exploitation because you have to get it through trade and when you trade you know subconsciously the other parties in any trade are economically hostile to you. This can sometimes be controlled through a public policy focused on sharing and on suppressing the super-rich, but it’s not a given that it just lands like that without effort or will on your part. So you’d have to always fight politically or secretly through magick against the worst excesses of physicalistic tech. That’s a time that could be better spent on something else.
Are you asserting that the mind is fully under your control? I guess this brings up the mind vs awareness issue. If fundamentally, what you are, is Awareness, then the mind is something that can potentially be out of your control.
Why are you on this sub if you aren’t even going to read? I’m not here to argue with you. I don’t find your beliefs interesting and worth arguing against. It’s all dumb and tedious. I expressly pointed out that I will abstain from any polemics here. Our discussion is very close to a polemic right now. I’m just not interested. I’m also not interested in personally dispelling your doubts for you. Although on some level I want to be amenable to all, I don’t want to nanny anyone and I am not in the business of individually helping and/or nurturing anyone.
If you want to know what I believe, read the other content on this sub. If you want me to clarify something that I previously said, fine. If you want to argue with me, then please feel free to go elsewhere because I don’t convert and don’t proselytize and do not engage in polemics. If you don’t agree then you don’t agree and I am fine with it and don’t want to spend time on it. I don’t have the slightest bit of sentimental attachment to anyone here on this sub, not even to my “favorite” people. I’m here to serve a grand cause and not people. Those who share in that cause can benefit. That’s all.
Certainly empowering! This is something I am working on. The reason I am thinking of all these things is because I want to firmly ground myself in the subjective idealist worldview.
You don’t seem to be going about it in a correct way. You need to contemplate more and when you have doubts, then bring your doubt under the light of analytic contemplation and investigate it the way Nagarjuna investigates conventional conceptions in his Mulamadhyamakakarika. Blow through your own doubts with contemplation by your own effort. Extreme logic can dissolve or undermine any offensive conception, and it’s just a question of will. The more you rely on having me dispel your doubts for you the dumber you’ll be.
If I encounter some guy in the future that brings up the possibility of mind reading, conscious machines that are super intelligent, etc, I want to be able to not be shaken by these ideas.
I’m not shaken by them. :) Basically what you want is possible. That’s all I want to say right now. First try to understand the basic definition of subjective idealism. It sounds to me like you’re confused about awareness vs mind. In subjective idealism as I have presented it here such confusion does not exist in the slightest. Plus, you need to have your own contemplation. Not just a little bit, but hours daily for decades. After 10 years there is minor progress. After 20 years there is a second wave of minor progress. That’s roughly the speed at which it developed for me. It might sound “slow” but if you compare this to the way physicalist understanding grows in society, their evolution rate is even slower than that. Scientists take hundreds of years to reach a new insight instead of new one every 10 years. Basically conventional science is much slower because in addition to contemplation which they have to do just like me, they also have to do peer review work and confirmation experiments, which I don’t need to do, because I rely on first principles and never take experience as evidential.
The method I use for developing my own mind is in principle much more agile than the method of science. Of course I could take this process with higher potential and just be really lazy about it and make it even worse than science, hahaha. I don’t do that. But I could. So just because the uppermost potential of subjective idealist style of contemplation is much higher than anything explicitly collaborative it doesn’t mean it must always be like that in practice. In practice the way it works depends on the individual. For some people the progress may be very slow. But there is no shortcut when it comes to learning self-reliance. Especially other-reliance is not a shortcut toward self-reliance! I hope that’s obvious.
It makes me uncomfortable and undermines my power just thinking about it. So even if it may not seem like it, I am seeking power by asking these questions and thinking of these possibilities. By openly discussing such things, It helps dissolve my fear of them.
You don’t get it. In the short term if I gently take your hand and start explaining it will help but you’ll cultivate an idea that wiser parental sort of figures are always “out there” and they’re powerfully shaping your well-being for you. This very premise right there is the source of the technological menace that you fear. In other words, technology is other-power whereas what you want is self-power. But the more you lean on someone like me for easy explanations and avoid your own effort (decades and lifetimes) in contemplation, the more your method resembles the situation of other-power, while your goal is ostensibly self-power. So your method becomes at odds with your goal. Then no matter how well I or anyone else explain anything, that fundamental other-reliance will not be undermined inside your mindstream, and you’ll never stand confidently on your own two, and other-power technology will remain an essential reliance to you then and the very thing you fear will come to pass.
What I am saying is: do not be an engineer of the very thing you don’t want. Be careful.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-10-11 11:21:17 (do71qzk)
All of these hypothetical technologies, if ever manifested in your realm, are wholly illusions. I’ve had a dream where a dream character used a machine to read my dream brain-waves and detect my thoughts. Was it real? Does that mean the dream isn’t a subjective illusion? Does that reduce my potential lucid influence on the dream?
The question is about whether you want to keep digging into the mentality that has led you into this deeply unconscious embedded physicalism or if you want to start digging out of it and into a new mentality?
There’s a looooooot of unconscious mental inertia driving you in that physicalist direction. But you can start working to unearth that and transform it into something magical if you want. It may not happen in an instant. Probably it won’t, because there are likely large parts of you that still like some parts of physicalism.
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-10-11 15:09:26 (do7cty5)
(I commented previously on this board twice before changing my handle again, I apologize if this makes it hard to remember who I am).
The spirit of SI seems to be a rebellion against the rules of the game as they are setup to be played at this level of reality. Basically, one is struggling with the fact that at this level of reality, we all wear a veil. But in my view, that is done by design. The veiling allows intensified personal experiences which are not possible in the more rarified spiritual realms. That’s why spirits lust to come here, because they see that visitors to these realms return to their realms of origin having become spiritually jacked and swole. Its the ultimate gym for muscles which, in the realms of bliss and light, are much harder to work out. Imagine a dimension where everyone is more loving and empathetic than the world’s most loving, Buddha-like therapist. A whole lot of things become impossible, particularly surrounding conflict and resulting self-development, in those realms.
Furthermore SI fails to acknowledge the subordinate, dependent and/or connected position which we do in fact occupy both in relation to our Higher Selves, to the Creator, to our fellow souls, and to the larger unfolding dynamics of the universe itself. The Self seems to be largely experienced through its own desires and what it can and cannot manifest - not through its connections to others, or through shared experiences with them. Connection and service to others is whats emphasized in the tradition I study (the Law of One).
The emphasis in SI on realization of the self - at a level that is completely at odds with what most of the souls nearest to us could ever hope of attaining - is an ideal so sheer, so dogged, that I feel it can’t help but cut crosswise to the grain of our connections to others. This is a philosophy that I couldn’t see bringing me closer to my fellow man, since the overriding viewpoint articulated within the philosophy is that he is in error. Compassion or Love or Understanding for that error does not seem to be powerfully in evidence.
That for me is why SI is unappealing (obviously I’m here, so it can’t be that unappealing ;) ). I prefer a path which to me is encompassed with the ideals of Love, faith, and surrender to God. Perhaps this boils down to a disagreement over whether it is Leg Day or Back Day at the gym. At any rate I am grateful to be in the presence of those powerful ones here and to be able to read your teachings, one of which in particular, has been life-transforming for me.
Also wanted to mention that Neville Goddard has a philosophy that makes similar points to SI, I’m reading him now and its pretty good stuff.
Originally commented by u/karpous_metanoias on 2017-11-05 05:03:14 (dpccslg)
The spirit of SI seems to be a rebellion against the rules of the game as they are setup to be played at this level of reality.
Not at all a rebellion. At least not inherently. I’m sure some people become interested due to a great degree of unhappiness with their experience as it currently is. But fundamentally, it is simply a realization that these apparent rules governing experience are actually the expression of one’s will and that they can be altered if one so chooses.
Furthermore SI fails to acknowledge the subordinate, dependent and/or connected position which we do in fact occupy both in relation to our Higher Selves, to the Creator, to our fellow souls, and to the larger unfolding dynamics of the universe itself.
It is possible to maintain a perspective involving the things you mention, and to make them appear to become a reality, from the perspective of SI. It’s really a question from the SI POV of whether you’d like to maintain such a perspective or not, and then how to train yourself in that perspective while maintaining the meta-perspective of SI so that you can always have the conscious knowledge of your ability to change your perspective again in the future if/when you decide you’d like to experience something different.
I think that we maintain massive huge parts of our own minds in deeply habitual unconsciousness and a big part of that is connected to hypothetical external minds/objects. As far as we do this, it is important to respect our own minds and to work with the apparent world as it appears so as to not drive ourselves unnecessarily into the experience of misery. Misery is misery, illusion or not. So, it makes sense to me to work with/around the world and others that you consider/feel/experience as real as long as you consider/feel/experience things in this way.
I think SI isn’t really a philosophy for the public in this realm. I publicly maintain a few close connections with friends and my girlfriend. I can talk about it to a few people irl but mostly it’s not something they are interested in and I don’t expect that of them. I think as a public, conventional human, it is still important to be compassionate and maintain a moderate amount of worldly intelligence to help make the world a good place for yourself and others. I think if one abandons life as a conventional human then it makes sense to no longer be concerned with those things, but as far as one isn’t a hermit, these things are important from a human POV. It’s just that from the POV of SI they are not metaphysically important or relevant to your own self-realization. The two are orthogonal to one another.
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-11-06 06:10:58 (dpe06ik)
What do you consider to be the most important practice for you within the domain of subjective idealism? And why?
For me, I’ve been thinking that the best core practice is contemplation on the subjective mental nature of reality (i.e. contemplating and solidifying the perspective of SI itself), deconstructing the material conception of perception and action. I think transforming my abstract cognition of reality benefits me threefold: first, it increases my access to readily available magical power, it increases my access to readily available psychic senses, and it reduces the dependencies that lead to amnesiatic rebirth.
So for me, that’s my core practice of SI, I think, with specific practices of magical power, psychic senses, and attaining non-amnesiatic immortality falling in the second tier of priority, all receiving direct benefit from the first priority. Or something like that.
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-11-10 13:37:08 (dplq9yb)
I consider important to intend and reason while knowing that:
-
From Moment to moment I’m creating the whole of this expirience drawing from the infinite potential of my imagination.
-
There is no world beyond that which I infere within my own conscience, and no appearance have significance in itself but by my own interpretation.
-
Therefore I’m the sole responsible for my good.
Originally commented by u/Alshimur on 2017-11-10 23:53:43 (dpm9jv7)
What do you do when you can’t decide out of all the possible options what would be good for you next?
Originally commented by u/Scew on 2017-11-14 12:54:44 (dps94do)
Beyond familiarity with the common trajectory and a willing to influence the outcomes I don’t know exactly what particular expirience will follow.
However, My reasoning is that no particular event should be judged as good or bad in itself, but there are skillful ways and unskillful ways to participate in any expirience.
For example, between losing an arm or winning a lottery, I prefer to win the lottery and not to lose an arm. However if I lose an arm I will not regard it as a detriment at all, all else remaining the same this event can be interpreted as an opportunity to cultivate mental virtues, also I can learn about how such apparent loss affect my mind and contemplate the possible reasons for such effect, etc…
On the other hand even if I win the lottery, if I fall in negligence and stray from my mental training, there will be no true benefit for myself from acquiring such wealth.
That being said, my purpose while playing with my dream is threefold:
- To enjoy whatever activity I choose to do.
- To learn with every expirience
- To achieve my relative goals within the dream.
Originally commented by u/Alshimur on 2017-11-14 21:25:30 (dpsrx9x)
-