Physicalism Redux

I thought Pluralistic Idealism was Subjective Idealism, in that there is a consensus reality achieved via coordination of many Minds?

Subjective Idealism is Berkeley's Idealism, where he believed that there is nothing that exists outside of mental perception. To him, there is only is perception, with nothing behind the perceptions ~ he believed that if no conscious being is observing something, it therefore exists in the mind of God. Berkeley further believed that God directly wills us to perceive objects, so God doesn't actually create anything.

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_idealism.html

Bishop George Berkeley is sometimes known as the "Father of Idealism", and he formulated one of the purest forms of Idealism in the early 18th Century. He argued that our knowledge must be based on our perceptions and that there was indeed no "real" knowable object behind one's perception (in effect, that what was "real" was the perception itself). He explained how it is that each of us apparently has much the same sort of perceptions of an object, by bringing in God as the immediate cause of all of our perceptions. Berkeley's version of Idealism is usually referred to as Subjective Idealism or Dogmatic Idealism (see the section below).

Subjective Idealism is thus not what you might have thought.

Subjective Idealism is Berkeley's Idealism, where he believed that there is nothing that exists outside of mental perception. To him, there is only is perception, with nothing behind the perceptions ~ he believed that if no conscious being is observing something, it therefore exists in the mind of God. Berkeley further believed that God directly wills us to perceive objects, so God doesn't actually create anything.

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_idealism.html

Subjective Idealism is thus not what you might have thought.

So what would we call an Idealism where there are only the Many, with consensus reality an "overlap" or perhaps "agreement" between them?

Polytheistic Idealism maybe, though I don't know if every Subject within the Many would have a "divine" status...

Pluraristic Idealism may be the best term for an Idealism that lacks a One as Ground but still allows for a consensus/shared world by the Many?

So what would we call an Idealism where there are only the Many, with consensus reality an "overlap" or perhaps "agreement" between them?

Well... if the Many share the same nature of being Mind or Spirit or whatever, that's still Monism, because each share the same core nature, though being individuals.

Polytheistic Idealism maybe, though I don't know if every Subject within the Many would have a "divine" status...

Well, if we're talking about the Subject in their most primal state ~ Soul, perhaps ~ then why not? Seems Divine enough to me.

Pluraristic Idealism may be the best term for an Idealism that lacks a One as Ground but still allows for a consensus/shared world by the Many?

I'm not sure that's even logically possible... how can you have a consensus/shared world that isn't of a common substance that the Many interact through? That's just Oneness as Ground.

I do like the idea of a Pluralism within Monism, though...

[Laird]

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'll take your like as agreement. Great, now, third question before drawing it all together:

Consensus reality experiences of are uniquely perspectival, which is to say that each experiencer perceives consensus reality from a unique perspective. Your perspective on the football match - from, say, the western end of the stadium - is different to another experiencer's perspective on the football match from, say, the eastern end of the stadium.

Agreed?

[Laird]

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.

The point is really that if you were fully and directly experiencing everything that another experiencer experienced - no more and no less - including volitional experiences such as moving your/their body, then for all intents and purposes you and (s)he would be identical. There would be no way to tell you apart unless or until your experiences diverged.

It seems unlikely to me that this ever occurs, but in any case, it's beyond the point in what I'm putting to Sci, which is that:

For practical purposes, we can differentiate experiencers by their different experiences.

[Laird]

I don't understand "Pluralistic Idealism"

I've defined and explained more than once what I mean by that term. I can't help you more than that.

I'll take your like as agreement. Great, now, third question before drawing it all together:

Consensus reality experiences of are uniquely perspectival, which is to say that each experiencer perceives consensus reality from a unique perspective. Your perspective on the football match - from, say, the western end of the stadium - is different to another experiencer's perspective on the football match from, say, the eastern end of the stadium.

Agreed?

I am still unclear why pluralistic Idealism means there is no "out there"?

(I just like things to show appreciation for someone taking their time, I don't always remember to do it though)

I do agree that experiences are based on perspective, and we reason there's an external world based on our first person accounts matching to such a degree an "out there" seems to be most plausible explanation...even if "out there" was just whatever brings the causal ordering of experience into agreement.

[Laird]

I am still unclear why pluralistic Idealism means there is no "out there"?

(I just like things to show appreciation for someone taking their time, I don't always remember to do it though)

OK, so, that wasn't an agreement after all.

There is no "out there" because although pluralistic, it's still idealism, which means that all that exists is experience, undergone by minds. All that can be "out there", then, is other minds.

[Laird]

Agreed now?

Agreed now?

Not really, though I do thank you for taking the time! 

I think there would still have to be some causal ordering that allows a Pluralist Idealist to distinguish between hallucinations and reality of external events?

Perhaps the question I should have first asked is "Are there any real world Pluralist Idealists?" because I am still unclear on what the term means and how it is distinguished from other types of Idealism.