"Discussion Thread"
Originally posted by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-07-26 10:25:28 (6pkgir).
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.
I'm stepping into this sub again under a different name, thanks to Nefandi for inviting me. I'm cautiously testing the waters of these - very attractive ideas - and some part of me reacts strongly to them, has a lot of ego defenses, and another part of me cleaves to them and loves them. Its an honor to know about this place.
That being said, here's what I'm working on.
I'm asking myself, at times, and at times, experimenting with, the limits of my self-love. How much do I love myself? Do I consider myself beautiful, really truly beautiful? And do I deserve such love? Can I actually hold an awareness of my own infinite beauty, without my mind jumping away like a squirrel, onto a more conventionally supported track of thought? Can I truly become aware that I am worthy of endless love, and can I actually feel that love?
The world will smirk at you, if you talk about self love in these terms. Thus, one has learned some resistance.
I know that my puppy, who I raised and put my whole heart into spending time with, does actual feel true and definite love for me. There is no ambiguity there. I take her love as a jumping off point in my mind for understanding why I am worthy of infinite love, and why I am an expression of infinite beauty.
For me, this could take any number of idiosyncratic forms. I often imagine my dog as a young child, as my daughter, but somehow still a poodle. She is talking to me, and in fact, singing to me. She is singing the song: "Natural Beauty" by Neil Young.
A natural beauty should be...preserved like a monument .... to nature.
She sings those words to me and means them unto the utmost depths. She sings to me, which she would do, if she could sing, and expresses love to me. I find this very moving and it helps me enter a space within myself that I find interesting and useful. Thanks for reading.
Originally commented by u/isbaici on 2017-08-05 01:28:44 (dl5tku4)
As a consequence of typing these words out, I learned some things about myself. I imagine the audience here as being very elevated, and so perhaps I allow myself to inhabit an elevated position when considering how my words appear to others here, and thus allow myself to inhabit a viewpoint which perhaps otherwise would not?
After typing the above its clear that:
I added the word 'infinite' when its quite clear that I just would like to feel any love at all, I was trying to add some kind of weight to the perception others have my psychic abilities / aspirations. I would like to feel some significant feeling of love, but in writing this I used the term 'infinite'.
I have an inferiority complex regarding my spiritual level or abilities, such that I am very ashamed of my (self-perceived) hobbled state, such that I am not powerfully attuned or inhabiting a state of powerful awareness in my daily round. I suppose I am ashamed of this. I wanted others here to perceive me as 'on the level', I guess, so I threw some big words around.
Also, I found the 'simple, tactile healing exercise' which seems just right for addressing the lack of love, so I'm going to experiment with that and see where things go.
Originally commented by u/isbaici on 2017-08-08 02:50:25 (dlafsba)
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)
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.
OK, but this conversation is coming out of the context of how to deal with multiple magical/divine/psychic beings with conflicting intent in your realm. Instead of any specific limitation that generally applied to all, you proposed that you would simply never see anyone do anything you don’t like with their magical abilities. i.e. they would simply never manifest in your realm. In order to maintain such a principle, you must strip yourself of the idea that individual beings are in any sense free or independent. They are not even ostensibly other in a significant degree if they don’t have the ability to think and want and act in ways contrary to your desires. That implies a dramatic removal of power from apparent others, all apparent others – either they can only use magic when it pleases you (so, interestingly, it would put everyone else in a position of having to pray/placate to you or your subconscious in order to perform magic, much like the Christian/Hermetic/Jewish ceremonial magic that calls upon the angels of god to request magical service), or they can use magic to do whatever they please, but what they please is always pre-structured to match the way you want them to think and feel and intend.
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.
Right. So a group of gods is just a more complex version of the group of mages problem (as I’m calling it at this moment, lol). How do you deal with the potential for apparent conflicts of interest in the use of magic? I see four general options. (a) Others cannot use magic. (b) Others must pray to you as deity to access magic (or to ‘the universe’ if e.g. you program the apparent universe to have a limited magical energy source available to the magical others). (c) Others use magic freely but can never have motives in conflict with your own. (d) Others use magic freely and may have conflicting motives, causing major unwanted magical influence on your realm and even your own abstract beliefs and desires potentially.
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 get that stability is a feature of my will. But that’s exactly what’s happening. By becoming more conscious of that aspect of my will, it’s going to be adjusted a lot more and much more flexible. Basically, the more conscious something is the more it is subject to our softer, everyday, fluctuating, weaker desires. It’s like a dream. Think about how unstable those are because so much of that power is so much more readily accessible. How often are your dreams, where so much magical power is available to you, of what appear to be the same people or the same places? What I’m saying is maybe at least part of me wants my mind to be this stable and rigid during waking time because I like to have the appearance of a stable, alive world (both people and environment) that can contradict me (within a limited set of rules). I mean, if you eliminate the potential for people or the environment to be set up in ways that you don’t like you eliminate the ‘aliveness’ or ‘contrariness’, as well as I expect disrupting some of the continuity (like there are situations where what I want to have happen most right now cannot be continuous with the past without completely abandoning all sense of there being a world that follows consistent, stable rules).
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.
It’s not that I am myself practicing in a magical group right now. It’s just that I’m thinking through what it would look like and mean to introduce magic into my world right now. Like I said, the options I listed above seem like the vaguely general options for how you could conduct your attitude about the magical abilities of others.
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.
Why do you think convention should be tolerant scientific physicalism? Why not have a convention with some degree of magic (or potentially a lot of magic?)?
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.
What do you mean by religion? I mean, do you not want to encourage/help other people to become gods themselves? To spread this idea?
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-09-23 08:08:58 (dndiltq)
OK, but this conversation is coming out of the context of how to deal with multiple magical/divine/psychic beings with conflicting intent in your realm. Instead of any specific limitation that generally applied to all, you proposed that you would simply never see anyone do anything you don’t like with their magical abilities. i.e. they would simply never manifest in your realm. In order to maintain such a principle, you must strip yourself of the idea that individual beings are in any sense free or independent. They are not even ostensibly other in a significant degree if they don’t have the ability to think and want and act in ways contrary to your desires. That implies a dramatic removal of power from apparent others, all apparent others – either they can only use magic when it pleases you (so, interestingly, it would put everyone else in a position of having to pray/placate to you or your subconscious in order to perform magic, much like the Christian/Hermetic/Jewish ceremonial magic that calls upon the angels of god to request magical service), or they can use magic to do whatever they please, but what they please is always pre-structured to match the way you want them to think and feel and intend.
That's one way to think about it. Another way is like this:
Each intent produces a corresponding result.
If I hold an intent that I have a pleasant experience then that's what happens. Then what about an intent that I don't have a pleasant experience? Such an intent is also possible. But they're not both possible at the same time, since they are in conflict. So if we grant true otherness to others, then axiomatically they can never be suppressed or ended, because they are true existences. Instead what would happen is that because of their divergent intents, they wouldn't be resolved into the same world as me. From their perspectives all their intents succeed. From my own, the same is true. If all of us are true existences, then the meaning of this is that we each exist in separate universes which have the option of overlapping or interpenetrating and each can control the degree and the quality of this overlap as well.
So you described the possibility where others never had any independent existence to begin with. In your scenario they were subconsciously mine to control all along, and it's just that I can control them consciously now. So in this scenario others don't lose anything at all, because they never had anything to begin with. They never had independence or even something called "life" or "will" to begin with, and if they never had it to begin with, how can they lose it?
On the other hand, if they have wills, their wills should follow the principle of willing, and thus their wills should be as complete and as mysterious as my own, because even if a little bit of this mysteriousness and power were missing, my will wouldn't be called "will." In that case, they along with their universes diverge if their shenanigans go outside the level I agree to resolve into my experience.
We see small instances of this with dreaming. People who are dreaming leave their bodies "here" but their minds experience a world that isn't compatible with this world. However, since they retain the memory and the impulse of this world, they can return back, and that's when they wake up.
There is no middle ground here, because if others are not truly other, then at most I can play-pretend that they are, but this would be me engaging in what is essentially a lie and the one I am lying to is myself. I would have to deceive myself.
Part of the problem as I see it, is that you don't allow arbitrary creation of different spaces, and I do. So since you are thinking only in terms of a single space, then the conflicts have to be resolved. But since I allow arbitrary creation of different spaces, conflicts never have to be resolved. They can be, but never have to be. Every conceived possibility exists in potential. There is a situation where conflicts have to be resolved and a situation where they do not have to be resolved, because I can conceive of both scenarios. There is a situation where many different experiential spaces exist in a non-intersecting manner and for all intents and purposes those other spaces are possibly not even myths from all points of view outside those spaces.
By becoming more conscious of that aspect of my will, it’s going to be adjusted a lot more and much more flexible.
I don't agree. You'll be doing all the same things then and now, but the difference is that you'll become conscious of them and begin taking responsibility.
And yes, stability is a feature of your own will, not the world. You're projecting what is really your feature onto the world. Regardless of how you manipulate anything, you are always stable because that is your nature. However, when stability is not owned, it doesn't seem that way. When stability is disowned the possibility of gaining and losing stability appears real.
Basically stability is your ability to always succeed. It has nothing to do with the rate of change. Stability simply means your plans cannot be shaken. Of course when you project so much onto the world, almost all your plans are involved with the world at that time. In that case you may be unable to distinguish between the world as a specific optional vision and your will in general.
I mean, if you eliminate the potential for people or the environment to be set up in ways that you don’t like you eliminate the ‘aliveness’ or ‘contrariness’, as well as I expect disrupting some of the continuity (like there are situations where what I want to have happen most right now cannot be continuous with the past without completely abandoning all sense of there being a world that follows consistent, stable rules).
This isn't an all or nothing. Explain why is it that I don't lack a sense of aliveness in my lucid dream while at the same time always having an amenable experience without fail?
There are interesting disagreements and boring disagreements. There are stupid challenges and fascinating challenges.
Why do you think convention should be tolerant scientific physicalism?
I don't have any sentimental attachment to it, but simply, it's because in the past I was a physicalist, so this convention seems like a friendly platform from which to jump off, in a sense. Once my powers develop sufficiently enough I may no longer want such a convention anymore.
Why not have a convention with some degree of magic (or potentially a lot of magic?)?
I don't lack things to do or think about, so why should I think about this? If I avoid something it is not necessarily me rejecting that thing. I may have a certain order in mind. For example I have potatoes and strawberries and I first eat potatoes and then strawberries. When I am eating potatoes I don't have it in my mind that I am rejecting strawberries, but at the same time, I am also not yet eating them.
When for me it is the right time to think about magickal conventions, I will of course naturally know that. Until then, I also know what to think about and do.
I mean, do you not want to encourage/help other people to become gods themselves? To spread this idea?
I don't want to spread this idea at all. At the same time, I believe some people are destined to encounter this idea not because of anything I am doing, but due to their own volitional states. In that case, I and what I do can be an accessory from their POV on their path.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-23 09:34:55 (dndmdvn)
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:
Originally commented by u/Alshimur on 2017-11-14 21:25:30 (dpsrx9x)
[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)
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)
I've been thinking a bit about traveling between worlds recently, as I've been thinking a lot about what I might want to do if I consciously reclaimed my power over reality and traveling around to different worlds and seeing different sorts of Laws of Reality, Nature, and Cultures all seem somewhat of interest to the explorer in me.
So, the question is. What would travel look like to a more empowered, or a fully empowered being?
I've been thinking about and have a few thoughts, although I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this as well.
First, there's one idea that is Astral Travel. To me this means maintaining the solidity of having a main, largely subconsciously maintained world, but increasing it's scope. So, with the Astral view, the physical body is a vehicle for your more fundamental body which is your Astral, ghost-like, body. In this model, if you can learn to more consciously control your astral body then you can leave your physical body and then travel in the Astral world to other "physical/stable" worlds and enter a body there and you could also explore more "ghostly/unstable" worlds that rely only on the Astral realm. So it would give you a much larger world to explore and potentially you could detach yourself from your physical body and live with your Astral body. But, this still makes you dependent on an 'external' body of some kind and potentially subjects you to a form of rebirth, but at least in a much better, broader type of reality which might make rebirth OK.
An alternative is to rely on the Mind alone as your 'true body' and not worry yourself about trying to stabilize an Astral reality in your subconscious to replace the Physical reality in your subconscious. There's two ways this "Mind-body" method might work, as I see it. First (the one less true version of the mind-body), you might still maintain your dependence on the physical body/stable main world and thus (a) when your body dies you will forget some things about your past lives (although this might be possible to mitigate with some spiritual work?) and enter a new stable main world with a new physical body and (b) all of your many-worlds travel would feel less important. More like dreaming or strong episodes of imagination and daydreaming. I.e. the explorations wouldn't feel or 'be' (in a certain sense) as real as your main world since you would still have to always come back to your physical body and maintain your physical life and your dream-lives are not necessary to come back to or maintain at all.
The alternative way to use the 'mind-body' is to de-stabilize any sense of a long-term stable main world or 'external' body at all. To make what starts as your main world feel more like a dream and less necessary for your continuity of consciousness. Eventually, there would not be a main world. You would just float from dream to dream, making them as long or short as you like and transforming everything. More or less this would be the state of Unilateral Subjective Idealism, or Solipsism.
There's a lot of appeal in this last view to me, and probably to some of you. It has some down sides too, though. There's no sense of a home, a place to be and belong. No sense of real, stable friends to share with. Now, in such a state you could certainly make yourself uninterested in a sense of home or belonging, and uninterested in a sense of sharing and friendship. But is that really desirable? There's no objective answer to that question, but it's something I'm thinking about a lot. There's definitely some downsides to such a view.
Interestingly, there's also a suggestion here that having a stable main world in our subconscious might partially be based on a desire for a home or friendship. IDK, just some speculation.
Love to hear some thoughts and responses to this.
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-09-11 04:56:56 (dmtn5jn)
There's a lot of appeal in this last view to me, and probably to some of you. It has some down sides too, though. There's no sense of a home, a place to be and belong. No sense of real, stable friends to share with. Now, in such a state you could certainly make yourself uninterested in a sense of home or belonging, and uninterested in a sense of sharing and friendship. But is that really desirable? There's no objective answer to that question, but it's something I'm thinking about a lot. There's definitely some downsides to such a view.
At least not in a conventional sense of "home." One's own mind becomes one's own home. Home then is no longer something one can depart and reenter, like with the physicalist and some other worldviews.
Interestingly, there's also a suggestion here that having a stable main world in our subconscious might partially be based on a desire for a home or friendship. IDK, just some speculation.
I think that's basically right at least in the common case as I understand the idea of a "common case." People conventionally crave companionship and a sense of sharing, which is funny when conventional physicalists get greedy, they basically go against some of their deepest desires.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-11 14:04:10 (dmud8u9)
So friendship it is (companionship and sharing, as you say). Do you think you want to go without friendship? Is that your goal? That's a pretty rough pill to swallow - total aloneness. I like people (at least some kinds of people/intelligent beings - not necessarily these humans on this planet as a whole for many lifetimes) and I don't think I'm ready to totally sacrifice them to power. At least not right now.
Within the human world, I guess the closest thing we see to that is hermits and loner travelers. One stays alone all the time. Another is always in new places with new people, and so can't sustain long-term relationships, which is its own kind of all-the-time aloneness.
I guess that total extreme of absolute aloneness and power and solipsism is one option. On the other hand, there's the extreme of obsessing over whatever other being's happen to be around you's perceptions of you so you can keep spending time with them, and being a servant and needing to keep your stable world that they like around to have them in your life.
There's obviously a wide range of middle ground in terms of one's interest in friendship (and sharing and companionship) and other beings. But what I don't see is a potential middle ground in terms of rebirth/attachment to a stable world. That seems pretty binary to me. At some point you become disinterested enough in others to stop having a stable main world. Before that you do have a stable main world and your explorations beyond it can only feel relatively limited/unreal in comparison (as opposed to everything feeling unreal and limited, lol). Taking occasional vacations from real life, or just always going on new vacations with no 'real life' to return to. (Is there an option to make real stable life itself a vacation? haha!) I just don't see past the binary here.
One thought is that you could have travel companions. But the thing is they only stick around as long as they want to keep traveling with you wherever you go. So that's a very fickle option. Otherwise it seems like you have to in some sense maintain a stable connection to people and regularly communicate with them to maintain a relationship. In a sense that is being travel companions. Staying sedentary for someone is you being their travel companion (just traveling no where, as it were). Some people will travel with others even if they'd rather go somewhere else, just to be with that person. Others will stay sedentary with others even if they'd rather go somewhere else, just to be with that person.
Other than people, on Earth, I think the main reason we stay sedentary (or should I say "I" stay sedentary) is work. We need money in this world to live decently, and we need work to get money (whether in a capitalist society where you work for private businesses, who are ideally supposed to be managed/regulated by the democratic state to make them work in the interest of the community or a socialist society where you directly work for the democratic state - either way you trade work for life in these societies) and there isn't, for most people, good paying work in society that involves traveling a lot.
Plus, maybe a stable main world with others isn't all bad. Maybe it's more desirable to expand that world, increase my (and maybe others' ?) magical abilities in it, and eliminate rebirth (or at least retain much more conscious memory between lives in the meantime)? No clear cut answers of course.
What do you think about this stuff?
Thoughts I had after I wrote this
Maybe there is some truth to the idea that a 'stable main world' is all you really every have. Even when you are 'traveling', 'always vacationing' in the mind. When you have no long-term stable world, you still are going from stable world to stable world at a quick pace. And you could just as easily go from stable world to stable world at a slower pace if you wanted. Or even at a cosmic snails pace if you really wanted. Maybe that's basically where we're at now. We never really stopped being the cosmic traveler with no attachments. We're just hanging out here in this mode of cognition and we've been here for a loooong time cause there's something we like about it for now. Eventually we'll probably keep drifting on, maybe quickly, maybe slowly, for all eternity. I like that view a lot more. It really weakens the binary there that I didn't like.
It's a separate question from the rebirth question (we could have a stable main world for a really long time without dying and forgetting), and the magic question (do we want to use magic, how much magic, do we want others to be able to use magic, how does that affect our relationship with them).
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-09-12 13:04:36 (dmvx02r)
Do you think you want to go without friendship?
Not particularly. But at the same time, I am all too aware of the hidden costs of friendship. I've had many hundreds of friends at one time and I've also had exceptionally deep and soulful one on one friendships as well. One could say I know all there is to know about friendship. I sure as hell appreciate it, but at the same time, friendship is like a disease. Once you have a friend you cannot be alone without offending your friend after some time. Furthermore, if you change too much from the person your friend has been accustomed to knowing, obviously they're liable to get upset. So basically friendship is a trade off. It gives something and takes something away.
I still enjoy friendships but I also want the ability to be alone and even better, to just disappear from the world for a time into perhaps another dimension altogether.
I like people (at least some kinds of people/intelligent beings - not necessarily these humans on this planet as a whole for many lifetimes) and I don't think I'm ready to totally sacrifice them to power. At least not right now.
I am of two minds about people. I can't say that I straightforwardly just like them. I've known all kinds of people in my life. The very worst moments in my life have been facilitated by other people, but not the best. So the bias is toward the bad. Another person cannot get inside my mind to really help me on my terms, but another person can sure enough spoil my peace and plans. In other words, it's easier for another person to hurt something in my life than to help something in my life. If all the people just vanished and left me to deal with nature, without intermediaries, I would do fine. I'd rather deal with an angry bear than an angry person. For the most part I see people as simply blocking my access to something that is rightfully mine anyway, and the pretext is that they're somehow helping me is not really working in my mind. Everything other people do for me, I can do better on my own, save maybe just one: the company itself. Like if the only time I saw other people is if I went to a tea house, and at no other time, and I didn't need to interact with people in order to live, maybe I would be unambiguously ecstatic about the presence of people in my life.
Within the human world, I guess the closest thing we see to that is hermits and loner travelers. One stays alone all the time. Another is always in new places with new people, and so can't sustain long-term relationships, which is its own kind of all-the-time aloneness.
That's what you see as an onlooker. That's not the right picture. You have to be on the inside of this to see how it is. What you're describing is another body as you observe it from your perspective. That isn't how it would be for you if you were a hermit. Your own life isn't just a body.
You just described the body of a hermit instead of their mentality.
What do you think about this stuff?
I want to be able to live on my own. When I don't depend on anyone for basic functioning, then I can meet people without desperation, without the sense that I need them to live. Not only will I then have a lighter attitude, I also will not be abused either, because all the leverage would be gone.
I don't mind friendships, but what I do mind is leverage. I don't want anyone to have leverage over me. I don't want people to be able to hold my access to food hostage and then impose conditions on me if I want said food, and so on. I don't want to pay anyone just for a right to dwell (like with rent, or like when you have to buy out some previous owner for an insane cost, especially if you take a loan out, then you pay 5 prices of the house in the long run... I don't want this at all).
This is why the magick I practice invariably will become rude and at some point I will just destroy any who oppose me. I don't want to live as a slave and without power who will negotiate with me seriously? I have to be ready to die and to kill before people will give me good terms in negotiations, right? Or better yet, I should not allow my mind to produce other people of certain types and just regulate othering much more than I do now.
Just yesterday I had a dream where I was being choked by someone. Since it's my dream, why should I dream like this? But that's what this life is like. It's a horrible dream. When dream characters choke me (or more accurately, my dream body), I don't negotiate. I instead use dream power and mold the dream or wake up. In that case I just decided to wake up since I couldn't be arsed to mold anything at the time. I don't keep dreaming on dream's given terms if those terms are bad enough.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-12 16:22:21 (dmw46du)
In other words, it's easier for another person to hurt something in my life than to help something in my life.
Hmm, maybe so. I'm not sure I have quite as dark a view of other people as you do. I see people like the rest of the world. Something that can be pleasant and useful or painful and obstructive.
You just described the body of a hermit instead of their mentality.
I agree. Aloneness =/= loneliness. But aloneness is a mentality. It's a mentality centered around doing your own thing and not being interested in sharing with or enjoying other sentient beings. Unless we're going to bring up an unusual example of a hermit who is always talking to spirits, but that's not what I'm talking about.
When I don't depend on anyone for basic functioning, then I can meet people without desperation, without the sense that I need them to live.
I think you should consider homesteading. I know that you don't like that you have to pay for the land and taxes, but there's decent land in the midwest that's pretty cheap and you could live off it and just isolate yourself. You could even get satellite internet if you have a little chunk of change saved up. I've visited several different places where people were doing this. Though honestly, most of them kept up a job on the side to pay for luxuries like store bought food and internet and propane and gasoline and cars because they didn't want to really rough it 100%. They just wanted to be more independent.
Regarding friendship in general. I view other people like I view the world. They can be great or terrible. The more I've othered the world and given power to it, the more I can enjoy letting things happen on their own, but the more risk I take to have something I don't like happen. So, it's like you've said before, you have to cultivate expressiveness and tolerance.
Expressiveness is increasing your power over the things you really want to make sure you have in life and then ensuring you have them - stripping that power from the world (from others in this case). Tolerance is becoming more comfortable with not always having the things you don't always have - especially the things you maintain as othered and outside your control (others' free will and potential for being devious in this case). Taking more power over your relationships with people, and becoming more comfortable with the varieties of interactions and conditions those people might have with you.
But, IDK that's just what I'm thinking right now.
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-09-14 13:18:37 (dmza095)
But aloneness is a mentality.
But that mentality only looks like a separate body from a 2nd person perspective. A person who is enjoying solitude is not just a single body to their own self. They are a world to themselves, not just something stripped of something else. Instead they are complete with all that was previously delegated, outsourced, lent out, recalled and returned back to the source. It's not an impoverished or simplistic state.
Someone who hasn't matured in solitude thinks of solitude as "I am here and everything else is over there, somewhere else." But this kind of solitude is only a beginner's solitude.
It's a mentality centered around doing your own thing and not being interested in sharing with or enjoying other sentient beings.
It's an attitude where all sentient beings are simply your own being, and then whether you display many bodies to your mind's eye or not makes no real difference. It's only an aesthetic difference.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-14 13:52:36 (dmzbcih)
I don't agree. I think that we're talking about separate things here. I think what I call the aloneness mentality is different than Unilateral Subjective Idealism, or from Subjective Idealism of any kind (such as S.I. Physicalism).
So, aloneness as a mentality, imo, is the disposition to strongly want to be entertained by yourself and not be interested in sharing with or being entertained by other apparent sentient beings. If others aren't interesting to one as sources of pleasure and entertainment and companionship, then they are just obstacles, or at best neutral objects in the world that could be replaced by something more desirable, and one would want to just be alone all the time. One can have this aloneness mentality as a physicalist or a S.I. physicalist or as a S.I. Unilateralist. And of course, it is a continuum. One can be completely uninterested in others (or maybe even more extreme have a very strong distaste for others) and on the other side of the continuum one can be obsessively interested in others and completely bored and miserable without them around even for a few seconds.
On the other hand, understanding that the whole world and all sentient beings are ultimately within one's own mind is just subjective idealism. A subjective idealist can be anywhere on that continuum of wanting apparent others in their mindstream or out of their mindstream. And they can also be anywhere on the continuum from heavy othering (e.g. S.I. Physicalism or S.I. Theism or S.I. Animism) to extremely limited othering and heavy self-ing (Unilateralism), which would determine how quickly they could magically change the state of the apparent others in their mindstream. That's how I see it.
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-09-15 07:15:37 (dn0hxsx)
Here's another way to think about it.
Let's say I am lucidly dreaming and I meet a bunch of dream characters. What can these characters do for me? They could get together and build me a house. But I can make a better house and faster with just an intent. I could make a house that's larger than a galaxy. They could dig a ditch, but I could split the Earth with just an intent. They could form a circle around my dream body and guard me from dream monsters. But I am a better guard of myself by simply staying lucid.
So is there anything they can do that I cannot do better myself? Well, yes. Being themselves! They're better at being what they are.
So for example, if I wanted to create a sense of bodily company, I'd have to create appearances just like those other dream characters. In other words, I could not do something an order of magnitude better. Perhaps I could manifest funnier and more moral people-appearances, but fundamentally they'd be very similar kind of appearances that would function in roughly the same way. So even if I could improve that function, it wouldn't be by a huge degree. It would be by a small but perhaps noticeable margin. And what about music? I could make heavenly music manifest, but it won't be drastically better than anything Mozart or Bach wrote and so on.
So basically the aloneness of a fully developed subjective idealism is that while I can enjoy the appearance of people for reasons such as music and conversations, I don't need them to feed me, build me houses and clothing, and guard me. Naturally they also cannot lay down any sort of law over me either. Like dream characters when I am lucid are completely helpless and naked in front of my gaze. In other words, I don't need them in a functional sense and nor can they threaten anything.
And above all, I don't need them to help me think. On the contrary, if I really want to think deeply, I have to make sure my own is the only voice that rings in my mind. I have to think with one voice and not 20 divergent ones that are all pulling in different directions.
So the appearance of people has some value regardless, but I would no longer live through the other people.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-15 10:13:13 (dn0qntz)
So, I agree with some of the suggestions in your last two comments, but not all of them.
I agree with the general idea that the more specific and demanding your desires are, and thus the more time and focus you need to spend on managing the apparent world to meet those desires, the less time and focus you have for introspection and contemplation, which reduces your wisdom (and thus your ability to serve yourself and your happiness) by making you less self-aware and pushing you to see things from a more narrow perspective. I think that being over-involved with people is one instance of this more general over-involvement with the world that can lead to and be a result of ignorance, but I don’t think people represent some problem to introspection over and above this. Do you?
I don’t think that just seeking solitude in the normal use of the expression is the always the same as the above. There’s seeking meditative, contemplative, introspective, imaginative, alone time to cultivate or maintain wisdom. And then there’s wanting to be alone because you think masturbating is more fun than sex or solitaire is more fun than poker. Just because you are alone doesn’t mean you are going to become any wiser or better at thinking for yourself if you’re not using that solitude in productive ways. So there’s solitude for fun, and there’s solitude for wisdom (and in some individuals these may have some overlap).
I do think that the logical conclusion of rational, critical, thought (thinking for yourself) is subjective idealism because it’s the ultimate result of asking the question ‘what beliefs benefit me the most, are “true”?’ as I see it. But a subjective idealist has the option to not “think for themselves” in the sense that they can maintain the appearance of a world in their subconscious and “seek out information” about that world from personal experience and other people.
I think that other people might have functional value as well as “intrinsic” value if you are manifesting a subconsciously maintained stable apparent world. Those people are parts of that world both to enjoy and use. In some cases those are separate and in some cases they are the same. If one likes the game that is this world then those ‘functional’ values start to look a lot more ‘intrinsic’ to such a person. I mean even their ability to produce music is pretty ‘functional’ from a certain POV. You could just manifest new music directly without potentially having to negotiate with unpleasant personalities in order to get their art from them. Or people’s independent use of their bodies is even an obstruction. What if they don’t consent to you doing to their body what you’d like to do to it? Then you have to negotiate with this obstructing other to get your way, and they may not consent to any negotiation to get what you want. So then the ideal scenario is to make them all very obviously just mind-slaves. Basically just extensions of your own body. You see, to me, there may just be something intrinsically desirable about maintaining a world and others with a sense of free-ness and other-ness. Sure, maybe things get a bit out of hand or I want to change them a bit, but I don’t think I’m 100% on board with total unilateral absorption of the world and other sentient beings into the conscious aspect of my mind right now. I guess the real question is if you find anything desirable about maintaining a stable apparent world with a stable environment and stable sentient beings, or if there is something more desirable about reabsorbing it all and maintaining 24/7 god-power (as opposed to temporarily becoming god and making some modifications and then returning to a worldly life). I don’t think there’s a right answer here or anything. It’s about personal taste. To me, right now I’m really unsure. I want more magical power, but I’m worried about the costs of too much power. Namely, I don’t know how much I want to destabilize my world and internalize it. Maybe there’s something about having a large stable environment populated with beings that’s good. Maybe I don’t want my ego/conscious to expand out and make my body encompass much more of or potentially all of the world? IDK what I want right now. I’m working on figuring that out. What do you want?
As an aside, could you discuss what you mean by no longer needing others to think and no longer living ‘through’ others? What does it mean to think for yourself, to you?
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2017-09-16 13:49:17 (dn2mcwy)
I don’t think that just seeking solitude in the normal use of the expression is the always the same as the above. There’s seeking meditative, contemplative, introspective, imaginative, alone time to cultivate or maintain wisdom. And then there’s wanting to be alone because you think masturbating is more fun than sex or solitaire is more fun than poker. Just because you are alone doesn’t mean you are going to become any wiser or better at thinking for yourself if you’re not using that solitude in productive ways. So there’s solitude for fun, and there’s solitude for wisdom (and in some individuals these may have some overlap).
But where does your idea of "wisdom" come from? Is it your own, or is it a social construct? Would you have the same idea of wisdom if you were left to think about it without the social pressure and social charm (using a magickal sense of the word "charm" here, as in, when you're "charmed" you're under someone's spell, a thrall, in this case society's thrall).
You should know what your own idea of wisdom would look like.
Secondly, wisdom and fun are not two different ends of the same spectrum. I frankly worry about people for whom wisdom and fun do not overlap. If anything, I think there is a strong positive correlation between fun and wisdom. I don't think fun is the same thing as wisdom, but certainly fun is not an antagonistic quality to wisdom.
By "fun" I refer to any experience of enjoyment, joy, bliss, release, but also ongoing well-being, a sense of rightness and competency within your own life, etc.
You could just manifest new music directly without potentially having to negotiate with unpleasant personalities in order to get their art from them.
I've done that. My point was something else. I was saying even if I am left to generate my own music, I can make myself hear better music than Bach and Mozart but it's not better by all that much. In other words, in some sense the best music of this plane is some ways already into the heavenly realm. Whereas other things are not so good. For example, I could teleport, or I could make a house that's huge inside and tiny on the outside and so on. People cannot make such things for me. I have to be the one to allow such things in my mind. Indeed, whatever people "make" is whatever I have allowed that they could make. In other words, before other people can make something I have to make way for them in my own mind. So if I made way for people to be able to contort space, they'd be able to do so eventually. I have to be the one to open that door. If you notice how physics has evolved to a more perspectival and subjective science? It's not an accident from my own POV. Of course physics cannot truly catch up to me, but it still follows me like a shadow. When I conceive of a new way of seeing things, physics follows along eventually.
So long time ago I have conceived that space can be pushed against. That's going to happen too. There are already some signs of this happening, but I have conceived of this looong before any articles like that appeared. Why have I conceived that? Because I think that's how we'll travel to other stars. I realized that spewing gas is not the way to go. Instead energy must be extracted from space itself and be used to push against the space. Then you don't have fuel constraints and you can accelerate endlessly. There will probably also be a need to phase into a different space, because you don't want to be colliding with the various debris in conventional space at high speeds. But physicists think they're just discovering whatever is "there" whereas I think I want this and that experience, now let's make it happen, and then physics come in line with whatever I actually want to be doing. On top of that if I want to make myself an exception from physics, I can do that as well. The sky's the limit.
As an aside, could you discuss what you mean by no longer needing others to think and no longer living ‘through’ others? What does it mean to think for yourself, to you?
Do you realize that any time you disagree with someone you don't actually think for yourself? That's because your disagreement is anchored to an idea someone else has expressed. So while you diverge from that idea, you're still mentally centering on the idea you're disagreeing with for so long as you're considering it in disagreement.
On top of that, it's not even that easy to move away from this even when the conditions are right. Let me explain. For example, I'll hear something on reddit and I disagree with it, then I go for a walk. So ostensibly I am lone. Then the idea comes up again and I disagree again. I think it's not even interesting and I should be thinking about something else entirely, and I do, when suddenly 5 minutes later that dumb ass idea comes up again, like it didn't go very far to begin with. And bam, I am back to thinking how I disagree with that idea and while I think that, I am not thinking about what I really wanted to think about.
So other people inside a conventional mentality (like say one of a fairly recent ex-physicalist) have a huge amount of gravity. That gravity is very deceptive because it doesn't look like much. People love to think they have figured stuff out on their own and that they think independently, but the reality is not like that. Even the so-called "independent" thinkers are hardly independent. At most they have some quasi-independent streak.
To really develop independent thinking it would help to isolate oneself at least mentally for say 6 months or better yet 5 years. 20 years is actually much better. In 20 years of reduced contact and reduced social obligations you'd start to see huge differences in how you think. You'd realize that there is absolutely no way you'd be able to think like that had you remained involved in conventional goings on. Of course I am only suggesting this to you. It's true in my experience.
When I realize what is precious to me and what has set me back, I cannot help but think 90% of what's precious to me came from my own mind, whereas 90% of what has set me back has come from someone else "out there."
In particular you must watch out for people who are very confident. They're the worst ones. And watch out for people who claim they used to be like you and then they "grew up" and whatnot. All that is poison. Naturally I even worry that even me speaking here like this is problematic for others. But at least you don't have to read this space all that much, or at all.
If I raise a finger in the air, and people see it, whether they like it or not, agree or not, their minds will be anchored to my finger, unless one of those people is an unparalleled saint with superlative self-control and beyond-conventional wisdom in full bloom.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-09-16 15:04:46 (dn2oq9j)
The rest of the odds and ends I didn't get around to posting the other day:
A frustrating circular argument I've been having with myself. Why is the world so unsatisfactory? If I am indeed omniscient and omnipotent, how could it get to this point? The "drunk on dreaming" explanation has never sat very easily with me. Whatever chain of events led to my current experience, I find it hard to believe that a wiser, all-knowing me wouldn't have some sort of a "break in case of existential emergency" box. It seems like a pretty big oversight.
This leads to a line of thinking that definitely interferes with manifestation for me. If I didn't leave myself an easy, obvious, quick way out of this current situation... was that intentional? Is there some benefit, not visible from this perspective, that makes my current limitations, and the generally lacklustre state of the world, something I shouldn't interfere with?
Or is my current state genuinely just a giant, regrettable cosmic oopsie?
I jotted this down late one night and can't remember exactly what I meant now, but I think what I was getting at was some kind of bird in the hand versus two in the bush kind of thing. So - if you're on a quest for magic, which is a great, incredibly desirable thing, it's hard not to be distracted by the aspects of human experience which are only appealing in a minuscule - often really, really minuscule - way. And I think this largely comes down to the reliability and predictability of these human experiences. It's difficult to set your sights on phenomenal cosmic powers when there's the anticipated pleasure of, say, the prospect of buying your favourite brand of soap tomorrow, which you just ran out of. These things shouldn't be in competition - they shouldn't even be in the same sentence. But there is an insidious, addictive quality to wanting something and knowing you can have it, even if it's boring and crappy.Maybe that's one of the reasons why we human.
There's a fantasy book I read recently. In it, there's a character who makes and trades teeth for wishes. The wishes come in the form of coins which disappear when they're "spent" and which, like coins, come in various denominations. The higher the denomination, the more significant the thing you can wish for. So smallest denomination - you can wish a light to turn out, or a small inkblot to disappear, etc. Highest denomination - maybe world peace, invulnerability? Also worth mentioning: the wishmonger in the book is portrayed as wise, and pretty judgey about shitty wishes.
Anyway, it was interesting to mentally give myself a handful of these wishes one night to spend - or try to. When you are faced, in imagination, with the key to getting what you desire, it's amazing how readily you talk yourself out of it, even if you don't want to.
I think a couple of other factors were at play here; the limitations imposed by the denominations of the wishes + the presence of an archetypal magus-type who I felt the need to justify myself to. At any rate, I found it a useful exercise for nutting out/verbalising to myself why I might struggle to impose my will in certain situations.
Not much to say on this one except that I studied William Wordsworth years back and remembered this prose introduction to his poem "Intimations of Immortality" in which he talks about his resistance, particularly in childhood, to viewing the world as solid and separate to him. You can read the full thing here if it's of interest: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/lewiss/PoeandWordsworth.htm
Short extract here: "I was often unable to think of external things as having external existence, and I communed with all that I saw as something not apart from, but inherent in, my own immaterial nature. Many times while going to school have I grasped at a wall or tree to recall myself from this abyss of idealism to the reality. At that time I was afraid of such processes."
Originally commented by u/BraverNewerWorld on 2017-08-14 23:49:44 (dllri67)