(2025-01-02, 03:20 AM)Laird Wrote: Do you acknowledge that each experience is unique to its experiencer? That is to say that if you are having an experience, then it would be mistaken to say that somebody else is also having that experience? I'm not talking about the object of the experience, because, obviously, multiple people can simultaneously have their own experience of the same object. I'm talking about the experience itself: that your experience of some object is yours alone, just as somebody else's experience of that same object is theirs alone.
I'm not Sciborg, but... my experiences have now demonstrated to me that experience is normally unique to an experiencer, except when experiencers can willing share their perceptions, memories and experiences with another through fully consenting two-way telepathy.
The astral entities I experience this with ~ it is a rather casual thing for them to be able to do. There's nothing that prevents it ~ it can just happen. With my consent of course ~ because I can unconsciously block them out if my mind is in some shocked or traumatized way.
It is only physical being who don't have strong telepathic capabilities that have this limitation ~ but it seems rather natural for physical beings.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
~ Carl Jung
(2025-01-02, 03:20 AM)Laird Wrote: Then let's focus there. It seems more productive than for me to respond to other parts of your response.
Do you acknowledge that each experience is unique to its experiencer? That is to say that if you are having an experience, then it would be mistaken to say that somebody else is also having that experience? I'm not talking about the object of the experience, because, obviously, multiple people can simultaneously have their own experience of the same object. I'm talking about the experience itself: that your experience of some object is yours alone, just as somebody else's experience of that same object is theirs alone.
Agreed so far?
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(2025-01-02, 03:42 AM)Valmar Wrote: I'm not Sciborg, but... my experiences have now demonstrated to me that experience is normally unique to an experiencer, except when experiencers can willing share their perceptions, memories and experiences with another through fully consenting two-way telepathy.
The astral entities I experience this with ~ it is a rather casual thing for them to be able to do. There's nothing that prevents it ~ it can just happen. With my consent of course ~ because I can unconsciously block them out if my mind is in some shocked or traumatized way.
It is only physical being who don't have strong telepathic capabilities that have this limitation ~ but it seems rather natural for physical beings.
I think @ Laird 's point is that even with telepathy - arguably *especially* with telepathy - there is still a sense of ownership as to who is having the experience.
That said I agree that telepathy, along with possession evidence, does possibly blur the distinction....
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(2025-01-02, 08:10 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: I think @Laird 's point is that even with telepathy - arguably *especially* with telepathy - there is still a sense of ownership as to who is having the experience.
I'm not so convinced, entirely... especially when the distinction between minds, thoughts and emotions blur. With a unitary experience, it becomes difficult to tell whether it is you, the other or both who is the source, at which point deferring to the latter becomes the best conclusion.
(2025-01-02, 08:10 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: That said I agree that telepathy, along with possession evidence, does possibly blur the distinction....
Possession a strange one... can possession involve conscious action by unconscious influences, in the possessed?
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
~ Carl Jung
(2025-01-02, 10:41 PM)Valmar Wrote: Possession a strange one... can possession involve conscious action by unconscious influences, in the possessed?
In cases of what seem to be "overshadowing" this is potentially the case.
However I am wary of trying to say too much metaphysically on the basis of Survival evidence, I prefer to establish a boundary between coherent metaphysics and Materialist belief in whatever the "physical" is as an a prioi reason to accept Survival evidence as valid.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(This post was last modified: 2025-01-03, 12:28 AM by Sciborg_S_Patel. Edited 1 time in total.)
(2025-01-02, 04:46 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote:
Excellent. Next, because we are considering (pluralistic) idealism, there are no objects of experience "out there"; that is to say that there are no noumena (other than the plurality of minds), only phenomena. When a mind (yours, for example) undergoes an experience of, say, a consensus-reality football match, the football "exists" - as such - merely as an experience of that mind, not in some external reality.
Still agreed?
(2025-01-02, 08:10 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: I think @Laird's point is that even with telepathy - arguably *especially* with telepathy - there is still a sense of ownership as to who is having the experience.
Yes, exactly. You're still indirectly albeit telepathically perceiving somebody else's experience.
(2025-01-04, 09:32 AM)Laird Wrote: Yes, exactly. You're still indirectly albeit telepathically perceiving somebody else's experience.
Except that this doesn't explain how I am able to experience the direct, full range of experience from the memories of my loong and tiger spirits. I directly experience through their minds.
I'll admit ~ it's very difficult to conceptualize as being possible if you haven't had the experience. But I have... and that's enough for me.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
~ Carl Jung
(2025-01-04, 09:31 AM)Laird Wrote: Excellent. Next, because we are considering (pluralistic) idealism, there are no objects of experience "out there"; that is to say that there are no noumena (other than the plurality of minds), only phenomena. When a mind (yours, for example) undergoes an experience of, say, a consensus-reality football match, the football "exists" - as such - merely as an experience of that mind, not in some external reality.
Still agreed?
I don't understand "Pluralistic Idealism" ~ it doesn't exist as a branch of Idealism, even.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
~ Carl Jung
(2025-01-04, 09:31 AM)Laird Wrote: Excellent. Next, because we are considering (pluralistic) idealism, there are no objects of experience "out there"; that is to say that there are no noumena (other than the plurality of minds), only phenomena. When a mind (yours, for example) undergoes an experience of, say, a consensus-reality football match, the football "exists" - as such - merely as an experience of that mind, not in some external reality.
Still agreed?
I thought Pluralistic Idealism was Subjective Idealism, in that there is a consensus reality achieved via coordination of many Minds?
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
|
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)