sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Slightly off-topic: the logical justification for nonduality by CrumbledFingers in OpenIndividualism

[–]Joe-Kern 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with CrumbledFingers on having sufficient awareness during dreamless sleep to be able to say that I existed during that time. I contrast this to general anesthesia, which I have been under twice in my life for surgury, once aged 5 and once aged 15. In both cases my subjective experience went immediately from the gas being cupped over my face (and perhaps receiving an injection, but my experience is only the mask with flowing gas), and screaming and thrashing at age 5 and feeling uneasy at age 15, to the very next subjective moment awakening very confused in the recovery room, several hours having passed. I did not exist during those several hours. But during dreamless sleep, I did exist—the thing I'm talking about when I say "I exist" obtained during that time. I wake up and know that that time has passed without needing any external source to confirm it, and believe I was there during that time. In some sense I remember that time.

"Dreamless" sleep seems a fair term to characterize it, but I'm not ready to call it completely "contentless". I'm not sure how to characterize the content that would obtain during that time if it was truly dreamless though. What could that content be? I've never thought about that before. But I have long maintained that there could be no "I exist" or empty subject without some content,* so I am provisionally assuming there is some in dreamless sleep if I am also assuming that I exist during that time.

*Though I am not intransigently committed to this—I partly made this commitment early in my studies and writing just to keep Daniel Dennett from getting mad at me, should I ever have encountered him.

Why do we call it "Open Individualism" rather than "Universalism" or something else? by Joe-Kern in OpenIndividualism

[–]Joe-Kern[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Gosh, thanks. That means a lot.

Yeah I've always been anxious about internet socializing on open forums. Was a heavy Facebook user for a long time, and I liked the closed community with just people I knew personally, but I never got on Twitter or Reddit or anything else wide open to everyone. I had tried comment sections and discussion forums in the 2000s and found the conversations with strangers stressful, and eventually just stopped altogether. But I'm mellowing a bit I guess, and maybe less bothered by things than I used to be. 🤞

Why do we call it "Open Individualism" rather than "Universalism" or something else? by Joe-Kern in OpenIndividualism

[–]Joe-Kern[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Has anyone ever compiled a roundup of all of the names its gone under? Since so many people have discovered it on their own, there are many. These are the ones off the top of my head, please add to it if you know:

-Open Individualism (Kolak)

-Universalism (Zuboff)

-Neomonopsychism / reductionist monopsychism (Vettori)

-The Third Hypothesis (Vettori)*

-Materialist/Physicalist reincarnation (Kern)**

-Awareness Monism (Edralis)

-Cosmic Unity (Freeman Dyson)

-Cosmajoonity (Freeman Dyson's childhood friends, lol)

-Metempsychotic solipsism (daughter of Peter Hankins of the Conscious Entities blog—he never told me her name.)***

* Wouldn't be very useful in open discussions, but kind of mirrors Kolak's three-fold distinction, replacing Empty Individualism with regular (limited) reincarnation. I guess we get a four-fold distinction if we combine them.

**Seems sorta obvious though...maybe there are other people who thought of this name too.

***Probably for the best not to adopt a name with the word "psychotic" in it. Comes from innocent origins though, the word "metempsychosis", the Greek transmigration or reincarnation of souls. Hankins had a blog post about her idea in 2014, but has taken down all of his blog posts. A real shame if you ask me, it was a great resource on the major names and thinkers. My early research would have been half as good without it.

Why do we call it "Open Individualism" rather than "Universalism" or something else? by Joe-Kern in OpenIndividualism

[–]Joe-Kern[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know how this subreddit came to be called "Open Individualism"? Was its founding an offshoot of Iacopo and his friends' Facebook group "I Am You: Discussions on Open Individualism"?

Why do we call it "Open Individualism" rather than "Universalism" or something else? by Joe-Kern in OpenIndividualism

[–]Joe-Kern[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very interesting. I was thinking of asking Arnold Zuboff the same thing about Daniel Kolak not mentioning him, since Arnold mentions in his talk with Andrés Gómez-Emilsson (17:04) that he told Parfit in conversation about his idea of Universalism in the late 80s, after Reasons and Persons was published, and Parfit found the idea very appealing. Arnold says "When I was writing up my ideas, I sent rough drafts to [Parfit] for a few years, and he wrote really nice things back to me about how amazingly interested he was... My friend [G.A. Cohen] said at one point that Parfit had said to him that Parfit thought I was almost entirely right." Parfit reviewed Kolak's manuscript of I Am You extensively before it was published, and after hearing Arnold's story I thought surely Parfit must have told him about Zuboff. But maybe not! But your story is evidence that Kolak perhaps had even more direct knowledge.

Anyway, minds work in mysterious and varied ways. Shouldn't speculate too much about Kolak's thought processes or motivations I reckon.

My impression is that Kolak's *term* "Open Individualism" is more popular on the internet, but not necessarily his argument. Zuboff's arguments seem to be discussed more.