weirdway

1 readers

1 users here now

weird (adj.)

c. 1400,

• "having power to control fate", from wierd (n.), from Old English wyrd "fate, chance, fortune; destiny; the Fates," literally "that which comes,"

• from Proto-Germanic wurthiz (cognates: Old Saxon wurd, Old High German wurt "fate," Old Norse urðr "fate, one of the three Norns"),

• from PIE wert- "to turn, to wind," (cognates: German werden, Old English weorðan "to become"),

• from root wer- (3) "to turn, bend" (see versus).

• For sense development from "turning" to "becoming," compare phrase turn into "become."

OVERVIEW

This is a community dedicated to discussing subjective idealism and its implications. For a more detailed explanation, please take a look at our vision statement.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Discussion Thread (www.reddit.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

100 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Talk more casually about SI here without having to make a formal post.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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)