this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
weirdway
70 readers
1 users here now
weird (adj.)
c. 1400,
• "having power to control fate", from wierd (n.), from Old English wyrd "fate, chance, fortune; destiny; the Fates," literally "that which comes,"
• from Proto-Germanic wurthiz (cognates: Old Saxon wurd, Old High German wurt "fate," Old Norse urðr "fate, one of the three Norns"),
• from PIE wert- "to turn, to wind," (cognates: German werden, Old English weorðan "to become"),
• from root wer- (3) "to turn, bend" (see versus).
• For sense development from "turning" to "becoming," compare phrase turn into "become."
OVERVIEW
This is a community dedicated to discussing subjective idealism and its implications. For a more detailed explanation, please take a look at our vision statement.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is no relationship because they're one and the same.
The mind is a three-sided capacity to know, to will and to experience. But that's also what I am. I can know. I can will. I can experience. Whatever I say about myself is what I say about mind as a three-sided capacity.
SI is a strictly 1st person perspectival understanding of the mind.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-07-08 08:03:53 (djx8ak6)
First I would like to thank you Mindseal and you AesirAnatman(I find your name amazing!) for the responses.
Addressing some points of Mindseal's discourse:.
From my POV: I'm not a human. "Human" can refer to a conception fabricated and expirienced by me.
Althrought by "humaning" I'm understanding a reference to my current "standart" mode of configuration of my dream in which the flow of expirience take the suggestive appearance of "Me as a person-object acting within a stable, shared, spatially-extended place unfolding in time ".
Even so I understand that I don't literally "have a body" but I'm infering(and by infering I mean creating, not reaching a "objective reality") the conception of "having a body" based primary upon the flow of "bodily sensation" being fabricated and expirienced by me.
But I could close my eyes and concentrate upon another aspect of my expirience till the flow of "bodily sensation" vanish from my awareness removing the base for the inference. Or I could modify the inference directly while maintaining the same kind of "bodily sensation" flowing.
To summarize: I'm not correlating "Me" with any aspect of my experience.
Rephrasing my position:
Mind is the Unity of 3 Capacities (Capacity to will, Capacity to know, Capacity to expirience) standing as the foundation of all that exist. By "all that exist" I mean infinite potentiality plus the limited "structure" which I'm drawing from potentiality and sustaining by my will in actuality.
I wouldn't change any word.
I wouldn't change any word.
I'm saying something like that: My subjectivity is prior to my Mind. All that exist, exist in my Mind, I'm beyond my Mind (hence I'm beyond existence also)
I'm wish to ask you what contradiction do you see between the proposition "I'm beyond Mind" and subjectivity.
Also I wish to ask the following:.
Other day you mentioned to me that I should remember to reach the omniscient state of knowing (which by now I see as possible and desirable) and we agreed that this state could be called perfect understanding of mind and of the most general principles by which experience is instantiated. For you, this omniscient state of knowing would be the same or different for each Subjectivity which reach this state?
Originally commented by u/Veneficvs on 2017-07-08 12:28:05 (djxjwye)
I don't agree with this.
I wouldn't call it a contradiction. It's just that saying that you are beyond your capabilities is not informative. It doesn't tell us anything about you. Or more accurately, when I flip what you say to my own perspective and I say to myself "I am beyond my own capabilities" it doesn't add any new meaning for me. Since it doesn't add anything, there is no reason to say it.
One possible reason that I currently see to maintain that oneself is separate from a singular threefold capacity of mind to know, to will and to experience is if you don't have the confidence in this capacity being primordial, and need a further retreat into an ever safer space of some sort.
I have absolute confidence in mind and have no desire to retreat into anything further.
Another possible reason is because you've heard other doctrines which preach "Self" and you want to reconcile what I say with those doctrines. I have no such concerns. I don't really care about any other doctrine and I don't strive to reconcile what I say with what anyone else says. This understanding of mine is not exactly a community project built around consensus seeking. It's my own mind seal. If you consider it the same or different compared to some other doctrine, that's the sort of freedom you have, but it isn't my concern.
I expose some of my understanding in case it is useful for someone else, and in order to create a volitional imprint on my own mindset that "Just as I say these things, so I hear them, and just as I hear them now, so I can hear them again later." It's a hedge against forgetting what I now know.
It's the same but it's incomparable. In other words, even though I believe it's the same, it isn't something that can be compared because it is always beyond convention. It's beyond any standards by which we would be doing the comparing. Omniscience is the sort of understanding that goes into establishing conventional standards to begin with. Since it's at the foundation of convention and is beyond convention, we could say it's the same, but when we say that, there is no way to verify. Generally one knows omniscience by being uninhibited in experience. So long as we still experience inhibitions, we're still not quite there yet. Until then, we all have what I call "secret omniscience" which means, unconscious omniscience. We're always omniscient, but we don't always remember that we are.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-07-08 19:17:18 (djxvxg1)
I think we can agree in disagree with each other.
Thank you, this was clear.
Originally commented by u/Veneficvs on 2017-07-08 22:30:39 (djy011u)
For my purpose, it doesn't matter how you think as long as it doesn't interfere with my vision. I'm not going to proactively look for an argument, because I don't have anything to prove. But I do have my vision to protect.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-07-08 22:40:07 (djy09s7)
Fair enough to me! I'm not looking for an argument either.
Originally commented by u/Veneficvs on 2017-07-08 23:06:15 (djy0zus)
Good to hear.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2017-07-08 23:37:09 (djy1y2s)