Part 1
Background Ideas
First, all of these modes of reality construction are contrasted in terms of how you relate your perspective to other perspectives. This is the essential differentiating idea. So, what is a perspective? At root, a perspective is a set of memories, beliefs, expectations, experiences, etc. which is contrasted with other sets of memories, beliefs, expectations, experiences, etc. (other perspectives). A perspective is a shape that intent can take. Your intent can take infinite shapes, so there are infinite perspectives available to you in the realm of potentiality. Whatever shape your intent presently takes is your actual, or manifest, perspective, as opposed to all the potential, or unmanifest, perspectives. (Don’t take the distinction between actual and potential 100% literally here. The two blur into each other)
Objects and appearances
Second, let’s look at what our idea of an ‘object’ is. An object is different from an object-appearance. The object-appearance is the immediate phenomenal aspect of an object. For a tree, the object-appearance is the visual appearances of the treebark and the leaves, the tactile appearances of the roughness of bark and smoothness of leaves, the fragrence of the flowers, etc. This is the object-appearance of a tree. Now what is our idea of the tree itself apart from these immediate appearances? We think the tree as a history as part of the world. And a future. We think the tree-appearance will transform and change in a coherent way according to the laws of nature which we think govern the transformation of tree-appearances. Our expectation that the tree consists of certain other tree-appearances if we touch it or look at it from a different spatial position than present. All of this can be summarized by saying that we have beliefs about how tree-appearances manifest and transform in our experience and world. The ‘object’ that is the tree is your memories, beliefs, expectations, narratives, etc. about this tree-appearance beyond it’s immediate phenomenal character. The ‘object’ that is a tree is your idea of the tree. So, we have objects, and object-appearances (also, don’t take the distinction between objects and object-appearences 100% literally. However it is very useful at this level of contemplation, imo).
Bodies and perspectives
Third, most objects that appear to us are conceptualized as in some way being dead. That is, they are not sentient – they are rigid material mechanisms, or rigid energetic flows, guided by some dead, fixed principles of motion and transformation. However, some objects are associated with perspectives. They are objects associated with life and sentience. We call these objects bodies. What are bodies and how do they work? How do we associate perspectives with bodies?
First, we need to differentiate three things here: body-appearances, bodies, and perspectives. Body-appearances and bodies are respectively a form of object-appearances and objects. The body-appearance of my friend is the way his body and face look, the way his voice sounds, or the way his body feels if touched. The body of my friend is my conception of that appearance associated with a 3D spatial object that I believe can be viewed from all sides, can move and transform according to certain physical rules, etc. The perspective is the state of mind I think of as governing the motion and changes of the body. This is in contrast to that which I conceptualize as governing the motion of dead objects: the laws of nature.
Just as the laws of nature are something I conceptualize as governing objects (which are ideas I use to give meaning to object-appearances), so too are other-perspectives something I conceptualize as governing bodies (which are ideas I use to give meaning to body-appearances). When I conceptualize an other-perspective, I can only imagine it as a perspective I could have. I cannot imagine a perspective from an outside POV. That’s impossible (which is why we call perspectives subjective).
Observation v. Magick
Now, in general there are two opposing ways to approach apparent objects in the world. Either you watch your unconscious habitual manifestations of object-appearances and learn your unconscious ways of modeling objects, and you strengthen and reify those models (this is what implicitly happens when people assume objects are self-existent and external), or you exercise conscious magical transformative power over your idea of the object and the object appearance, to adjust your models of how objects and appearances unfold and manifest.
Of course, this applies to objects like trees. When we assume the world is self-existing, i.e. when we want to understand our own habitual models of manifestation without destroying them, then we observe the world. By doing so we learn what patterns of manifestation are normal. As we develop an understanding of our own intentions and make them conscious, we can learn to use those understandings to interact with the world consciously and meaningfully. This is how we can come to learn how trees, or metals function in the world. We don’t tamper with those manifestations consciously (for the most part anyway), and instead learn to understand them. Similarly, you can learn to make your intentions of how trees function conscious and familiar to you and then transform those intentions consciously. This transformation is called magick. Magick, or direct willful transformation of your intentions rather than the strict observation of them, is the way you control your body.
However, this also applies to the perspectives of others. When we assume other perspectives are self-existing, i.e. when we want to understand our own habitually manifested models of other-perspectives, then we observe the bodies of others. By doing so, we learn what sorts of intentions these other-perspectives consist of. We can only do this if we have a system of translating the actions of bodies into understandable intentions. But, the details of how that functions, and how from that language develops, are for another post. Anyway, as we develop an understanding of our own intentionally othered-perspectives and make them conscious, we can learn to use those understandings to interact with others consciously and meaningfully. This is how we can come to learn about the perspectives of others in the world. We don’t tamper with those manifested perspectives consciously (for the most part anyway), and instead learn to understand them. Similarly to with objects, you can learn to make your intentionally othered perspectives conscious and familiar to you and then transform those perspectives consciously. This transformation is also called magick (specifically telepathic influence magick, and is often looked down on by humans)…
Originally posted by u/AesirAnatman on 2016-05-04 13:01:33
Part 2
The Modes of Reality Construction
In context of all of this, let’s look at the three reality-construction modes I proposed in my original comment: Anarchic, Democratic, and Despotic.
Anarchic or Solipsistic
In the Anarchic mode, there is no respect for other-perspectives. An individual conforms their beliefs about objects, the world, and other perspectives to whatever they want and expeirences the world in context of their newly created beliefs. Such an individual is regarded as completely crazy and insane by human, worldly standards. In fact, any convention whatsoever other than conventions consciously created and maintained by lucid beings would consider this mode insane. That’s because humans usually think there is a ‘real world’ out there and changing your experiences and beliefs won’t change the actual reality, which means you could risk destroying your real body and living in a state of delusion and hallucination. This mode, from the subjective idealist perspective, is by far the most powerful. It also can be the most isolating if misused (unless isolation is what you’re looking for).
Democratic
In the Democratic mode, there is roughly equal respect for other-perspectives and your own-perspective. An individual conforms their beliefs about objects, the world, and other perspectives according to some collective system, and experiences the world in context of those new beliefs. There are two primary species of the Democratic mode: the scientific, and the magickal. In the scientific species, you study your own mental habits of manifestation (the patterns of phenomena in your experience). Others also study the patterns of phenomena in their experience (their mental habits of manifestation). Then, you come together and compare notes. Everyone agrees to believe whatever patterns were most common for most people, and to conform their minds to this majority habit. Eventually, deviant mental habits are eliminated and the world becomes more and more solid and stable and the same for everyone and not subject to alteration. In the scientific mode, this can continue until even models of how your inner worlds develop and people start to lose a sense of power over their inner worlds (e.g. my mind works according to fixed, scientific, rules = defining your own mental action in terms of chemicals, psychological models, etc.). Generally, this view is done with the belief that some ‘truth’ is being approached and more is being learned about it. It is hypothetically possible, however, to engage in the scientific mode from a lucid POV, if you so chose.
The other major species of the Democratic mode is the magickal mode. In the magickal mode, we don’t all conform our minds more and more to our collective fixed habits. Instead, we all believe that everyone’s beliefs exert some degree of influence on reality. i.e. you conform your mind to whatever most people believe, and everyone else does the same. The biggest difference with this mode is that you and others also have a role in shaping or altering reality. There is an understanding that individual can put pressure on the group-reality, and alter it somewhat. The more people who jump on board, the more your group-reality is altered. So, in this view, because most people are physicalists, the world will appear physicalistic. But if most people started to become animists, the world would start to look more animistic (i.e. in both circumstances, as other people’s views changed, you would start to alter your views). Similarly, it might be the case that magickal traditions and beliefs that historically had more adherents might be more powerful than new traditions, if you make it a democracy of all people in history. Conversely, it might be a democracy only of all people presently alive, which would mean whatever belief-systems are most popular right now would be most powerful and most influential in reality. In this world, everyone can use magickal influence to exert some pressure on the nature of reality, but no one will override it 100%. So, you are less powerful than in the anarchic mode, but you still have a little power. And it allows for other people to self-define mostly. Of course, it’s possible that the beings in your realm decide collective to take there reality to a place you don’t want to go, just like the scientific mode or the Despotic mode. This mode can easily be imagined as a self-reified mode (the beings participating might consider it the ‘real’ or ‘right’ way that reality works), or as a lucid game mode.
Despotic
Last, the Despotic mode. This one is simple enough. It’s when you conform your mind to another person or group’s conception of reality. This takes two ordinary forms: either the adherents believe the authorities have some sort of privileged access to ‘truth’ (the ‘right’ beliefs) and they want to know those right beliefs and conform their personal beliefs to the truth (which would encompass organized religions and cults). OR. The adherents are forced to conform their minds to the authorities because the authorities have some sort of power over them (i.e. a state forcing masses of people to believe a religion (Medieval Christianity in Europe) or to believe state propaganda (totalitarian regimes)). I guess in principle a lucid individual might choose to conform their mind 100% to the view of another just as a game. Hmm…In fact, I just came up with a strange lucid/transcendent beings game that enlightened persons might play: imagine a system of rotating authorities. Every 2 years (or something), we let someone new be the authority on our group reality for a little while. That’s something lucid beings might in principle choose to do.
Closing
I think there’s a lot of fertile ground here for exploration of particular views and dream-modes and dream-games we could adhere to. But, it’s important to remember that cultivating lucidity means realizing your power to transform your mind into any of these and other modes, and maintaining consciousness of your responsibility for and power over that state of mind throughout your experience. This is what I mean when I say you are the Lord God Almighty. I’m reminding you of your power over your frame of mind. I’m trying to wake you up and get you to be lucid.
So, my friends, may this dream-decoration on your ever-perfect mind serve you as a tool to help you dream the dream of waking up.