The vertigo of eternity

[Hedge90]

That is not my problem at the moment. My derealisation episodes have ceased since then.
No, it's that the thought of being the only thing in existence, who just happens to experience this body at the moment, is utterly terrifying. Even though I know this is not the same as solipsism, i.e. other people are conscious too, if ultimately we are all the same thing but just can't access each others experiences at the moment, to me this is terrifying. It makes me feel insanely lonely, even though I know (or at least, I hope) that this loneliness is just a projection of my ego into a situation it cannot understand.

[AshvinP]

That is not my problem at the moment. My derealisation episodes have ceased since then.
No, it's that the thought of being the only thing in existence, who just happens to experience this body at the moment, is utterly terrifying. Even though I know this is not the same as solipsism, i.e. other people are conscious too, if ultimately we are all the same thing but just can't access each others experiences at the moment, to me this is terrifying. It makes me feel insanely lonely, even though I know (or at least, I hope) that this loneliness is just a projection of my ego into a situation it cannot understand.

As mentioned on another thread, this may stem from lack of concrete resolution on the "Oneness" that is often advanced here. Although my source of anxiety in these matters may not be the same as yours, meditating on mythic imagery and ancient Wisdom always helps.

For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

[tjssailor]

That is not my problem at the moment. My derealisation episodes have ceased since then.
No, it's that the thought of being the only thing in existence, who just happens to experience this body at the moment, is utterly terrifying. Even though I know this is not the same as solipsism, i.e. other people are conscious too, if ultimately we are all the same thing but just can't access each others experiences at the moment, to me this is terrifying. It makes me feel insanely lonely, even though I know (or at least, I hope) that this loneliness is just a projection of my ego into a situation it cannot understand.

I know all about existential dread. It might help to be more accurate and think the One Consciousness (that I am) is other people too. To understand oneself as Consciousness vs. a body or physical identity.

My mantra is: I am You, You are Me. Seems to be helpful

[ParadoxZone]

Thanks, tjsailor

"My mantra is: I am You, You are Me. Seems to be helpful"

That's already more helpful than "I am that", which brings its own feelings of terror, here at least.

[tjssailor]

I am you, you are me, we are One.
I am you, you are me, we are One.
I am you, you are me, we are One.
I am you, you are me, we are One.
I am you, you are me, we are One.
I am you, you are me, we are One.

[AshvinP]

I am you, you are me, we are One.
I am you, you are me, we are One.
I am you, you are me, we are One.
I am you, you are me, we are One.
I am you, you are me, we are One.
I am you, you are me, we are One.

[Hedge90]

Thanks, tjsailor

"My mantra is: I am You, You are Me. Seems to be helpful"

That's already more helpful than "I am that", which brings its own feelings of terror, here at least.

For some time, I too was overcome with a certain dread upon this realisation (once I've seen it through the lens of intellect, not lived experience). But I think I'm through that. What I had to realise is that although there is (probably) only one consciousness, that should NOT be confused with any notion like "there is only one person". Everything that makes you a person is you. Consciousness does not have personhood. It's an aspect of nature like gravity or the magnetic force. It breathes fire into the thing that is you, but it is not you. It is, simply, consciousness. Once your story is over, you'll simply become consciousness. You won't think about how much this sucks (I don't think it will), because any thought is already a product of your human brain and mind.

[AshvinP]

Thanks, tjsailor

"My mantra is: I am You, You are Me. Seems to be helpful"

That's already more helpful than "I am that", which brings its own feelings of terror, here at least.

For some time, I too was overcome with a certain dread upon this realisation (once I've seen it through the lens of intellect, not lived experience). But I think I'm through that. What I had to realise is that although there is (probably) only one consciousness, that should NOT be confused with any notion like "there is only one person". Everything that makes you a person is you. Consciousness does not have personhood. It's an aspect of nature like gravity or the magnetic force. It breathes fire into the thing that is you, but it is not you. It is, simply, consciousness. Once your story is over, you'll simply become consciousness. You won't think about how much this sucks (I don't think it will), because any thought is already a product of your human brain and mind.

There are two sorts of dread - one from feeling we will always be isolated in personal bubbles of consciousness, alienated from each other and Nature; the other from feeling we will be absorbed into impersonal Consciousness (or just die and lose consciousness) and thereby lose all memory, hopes, ambitions, virtues, knowledge, relationships, etc. Both feelings result in dread for the same reason - they are not accurately reflecting the structure of Reality. How could such existential anxiety result from being in alignment with the structure of Reality? (it could only be that way if we accept physicalist Darwinian evolution) My essays here are all trying to dispel this dogma of modernity in one way or another. Our Thinking-thoughts are what transcend the personal, as they result from truly shared activity with the One Spirit, and our Willing (desires, actions) is what makes us personal, to the extent we pursue and develop those shared thoughts in different ways. That it is the way it is now - it does not necessarily always have to be that way. I imagine that, in the distant future, when our W-F-T are harmonized with All-Being within the course of our current evolution, then W-F-T could serve much different purposes. And who knows where we go from there.

We find the deepest meaning, optimism, and satisfaction in knowing that this transpersonal harmony is possible, and in knowing our story never ends. Our story is eternal. With all due respect to BK, I imagine many people who come here after seeing his great work share the same sorts of dreads and, IMO, incorrect perspectives on the details that you guys do. That is no coincidence. He does not pay enough attention to that side of the 'equation'. It is not enough to deconstruct modernity and materialism, but something must replace it which proactively points people towards further knowledge of Reality. I think BK intuits that based on many of his recent interviews and sentiments, but he still thinks that is a matter which remains completely outside the domain of philosophy and science. He is still failing to perceive how to move past Schopenhauer's blind Will. How could anything so fundamental to our existence as knowledge, meaning, and purpose remain isolated from the best cognitive tools we have under monist idealism? It simply cannot. There is a lot of talk about letting the "personal ego" die in these circles, but not many examples of it occurring. Nothing "personal" in that manner is truly real - "everything transient is but a parable" (Goethe).

[ParadoxZone]

There are two sorts of dread - one from feeling we will always be isolated in personal bubbles of consciousness, alienated from each other and Nature; the other from feeling we will be absorbed into impersonal Consciousness (or just die and lose consciousness) and thereby lose all memory, hopes, ambitions, virtues, knowledge, relationships, etc. Both feelings result in dread for the same reason - they are not accurately reflecting the structure of Reality. How could such existential anxiety result from being in alignment with the structure of Reality? (it could only be that way if we accept physicalist Darwinian evolution) My essays here are all trying to dispel this dogma of modernity in one way or another. Our Thinking-thoughts are what transcend the personal, as they result from truly shared activity with the One Spirit, and our Willing (desires, actions) is what makes us personal, to the extent we pursue and develop those shared thoughts in different ways. That it is the way it is now - it does not necessarily always have to be that way. I imagine that, in the distant future, when our W-F-T are harmonized with All-Being within the course of our current evolution, then W-F-T could serve much different purposes. And who knows where we go from there.

We find the deepest meaning, optimism, and satisfaction in knowing that this transpersonal harmony is possible, and in knowing our story never ends. Our story is eternal. With all due respect to BK, I imagine many people who come here after seeing his great work share the same sorts of dreads and, IMO, incorrect perspectives on the details that you guys do. That is no coincidence. He does not pay enough attention to that side of the 'equation'. It is not enough to deconstruct modernity and materialism, but something must replace it which proactively points people towards further knowledge of Reality. I think BK intuits that based on many of his recent interviews and sentiments, but he still thinks that is a matter which remains completely outside the domain of philosophy and science. He is still failing to perceive how to move past Schopenhauer's blind Will. How could anything so fundamental to our existence as knowledge, meaning, and purpose remain isolated from the best cognitive tools we have under monist idealism? It simply cannot. There is a lot of talk about letting the "personal ego" die in these circles, but not many examples of it occurring. Nothing "personal" in that manner is truly real - "everything transient is but a parable" (Goethe).
[/quote]

When I speak of dread, I'm talking about in-your-face terror moments, not the underlying, under the surface existential anxiety. The mantras are useful, if remembered, to get through those moments. I mentioned previously the derealisation episodes. In those, everything seemed to be still happening, yet in various shades of grey. The other moments consist of a seeming realisation, along the lines of "It's all me and it's also all of them, individually, collectively". The latter "sort" still happens here, not the former.

I've read your comment carefully, a few times. I'm not convinced you're capturing, adequately, the"sorts" of dread. You mentioned recently that there is a source to your own anxiety. I am interested to know more about your anxiety and your take on the source thereof.

I don't accept physicalism, period. After that, discussion of the mechanism of evolution is moot. Bernardo's work, primarily about a consciousness-first ontology is attractive to me (and I assume others) partly because of the intellectual freedom it bestows. Having introjected physicalism, from our wider culture, it's a blessed relief to have somewhere to come, someone to listen to, whereby that attitude can be restored. It gets loosened, from time to time. I'm not sure it's fair to criticise Bernardo for not presenting a TOE. (That's what I read from your criticism of him for not attending to that side of the "equation.)

As for not having a handle on the"structure of reality", I plead guilty. Or rather, I don't have anything useful that I could find the words for right now. I'm pretty sure though that I've had such a handle, even intellectually, periodically. It doesn't hold. As for letting go of the personal ego, that has happened too. If it was gone permanently, I don't suppose I'd be typing this.

I've read many of your essays, not all of them. I find them hard to read because of the "we must", "we should" stuff. I find them off-putting for that reason alone. If you've written something more personal, without the exhortations, I'd love to read it. Is there something here or anywhere else that you could point me to? Us "guys" might find that very valuable.

[AshvinP]

There are two sorts of dread - one from feeling we will always be isolated in personal bubbles of consciousness, alienated from each other and Nature; the other from feeling we will be absorbed into impersonal Consciousness (or just die and lose consciousness) and thereby lose all memory, hopes, ambitions, virtues, knowledge, relationships, etc. Both feelings result in dread for the same reason - they are not accurately reflecting the structure of Reality. How could such existential anxiety result from being in alignment with the structure of Reality? (it could only be that way if we accept physicalist Darwinian evolution) My essays here are all trying to dispel this dogma of modernity in one way or another. Our Thinking-thoughts are what transcend the personal, as they result from truly shared activity with the One Spirit, and our Willing (desires, actions) is what makes us personal, to the extent we pursue and develop those shared thoughts in different ways. That it is the way it is now - it does not necessarily always have to be that way. I imagine that, in the distant future, when our W-F-T are harmonized with All-Being within the course of our current evolution, then W-F-T could serve much different purposes. And who knows where we go from there.

We find the deepest meaning, optimism, and satisfaction in knowing that this transpersonal harmony is possible, and in knowing our story never ends. Our story is eternal. With all due respect to BK, I imagine many people who come here after seeing his great work share the same sorts of dreads and, IMO, incorrect perspectives on the details that you guys do. That is no coincidence. He does not pay enough attention to that side of the 'equation'. It is not enough to deconstruct modernity and materialism, but something must replace it which proactively points people towards further knowledge of Reality. I think BK intuits that based on many of his recent interviews and sentiments, but he still thinks that is a matter which remains completely outside the domain of philosophy and science. He is still failing to perceive how to move past Schopenhauer's blind Will. How could anything so fundamental to our existence as knowledge, meaning, and purpose remain isolated from the best cognitive tools we have under monist idealism? It simply cannot. There is a lot of talk about letting the "personal ego" die in these circles, but not many examples of it occurring. Nothing "personal" in that manner is truly real - "everything transient is but a parable" (Goethe).

When I speak of dread, I'm talking about in-your-face terror moments, not the underlying, under the surface existential anxiety. The mantras are useful, if remembered, to get through those moments. I mentioned previously the derealisation episodes. In those, everything seemed to be still happening, yet in various shades of grey. The other moments consist of a seeming realisation, along the lines of "It's all me and it's also all of them, individually, collectively". The latter "sort" still happens here, not the former.

I've read your comment carefully, a few times. I'm not convinced you're capturing, adequately, the"sorts" of dread. You mentioned recently that there is a source to your own anxiety. I am interested to know more about your anxiety and your take on the source thereof.

I don't accept physicalism, period. After that, discussion of the mechanism of evolution is moot. Bernardo's work, primarily about a consciousness-first ontology is attractive to me (and I assume others) partly because of the intellectual freedom it bestows. Having introjected physicalism, from our wider culture, it's a blessed relief to have somewhere to come, someone to listen to, whereby that attitude can be restored. It gets loosened, from time to time. I'm not sure it's fair to criticise Bernardo for not presenting a TOE. (That's what I read from your criticism of him for not attending to that side of the "equation.)

As for not having a handle on the "structure of reality", I plead guilty. Or rather, I don't have anything useful that I could find the words for right now. I'm pretty sure though that I've had such a handle, even intellectually, periodically. It doesn't hold. As for letting go of the personal ego, that has happened too. If it was gone permanently, I don't suppose I'd be typing this.

I've read many of your essays, not all of them. I find them hard to read because of the "we must", "we should" stuff. I find them off-putting for that reason alone. If you've written something more personal, without the exhortations, I'd love to read it. Is there something here or anywhere else that you could point me to? Us "guys" might find that very valuable.

Perhaps I should not have included you in the response, because I was really thinking of Hedge90 and tjsailor's recent comments about dread associated with solipsism and Hedge's response that it helps to know "[Consciousness] breathes fire into the thing that is you, but it is not you. It is, simply, consciousness. Once your story is over, you'll simply become consciousness. You won't think about how much this sucks (I don't think it will), because any thought is already a product of your human brain and mind." My essays are all about dispelling that particular notion which is very common within idealism, or at least that is a major common thread running through the essays. I think that particular debate within idealism has been the main one over the last 200 years and rightly so, because of the vastly different implications which unfold from taking one view or the other.

BK is in a tough spot - he philosophizes for a living now. So I understand that veering off into spiritual issues, i.e. "the other side of the equation", is not really considered a great way to maintain a reputation as a rigorous analytical philosopher. On the other hand, he does actively defend Schopenhauer's epistemology which treats those issues as fundamentally incapable of being rigorously investigated. That is at major odds with my view as reflected in the essays. He is at least involved in that epistemic aspect of TOE. But again I don't fault him for sticking with the analytical philosophy for now - we on his forum, however, casually observing and commenting, do not have that same dilemma. I like to think BK is happy that we are here to discuss these other issues he cannot otherwise comment on by way of his forum, but I have no idea.

re: my source of anxiety - I definitely do not have the anxiety from the "derealisation" episodes you guys (and girls) are referring to. My anxieties are less intense, but not garden variety, as they are mostly centered around whether I am taking enough spiritual responsibility for my life and what aspects of my "personal" ego I need to let die off. The "personal ego" is much different than your sense of an essential Ego-I-Self that observes, organizes, thinks, etc. and allows you to function in the world. Today, the personal ego can pretty much be equated with abstract intellect which reifies its own rigid thoughts into essential Reality. That is what must be burned off and we must overcome, IF we desire to make progress in these very specific avenues I am referring to.

"We must" should be taken in the context of what I am writing about - it is not about an external order that needs to be imposed on anyone, but rather what we must find from within ourselves if we want to approach knowledge of higher worlds. That is a very ancient esoteric knowledge that developed through masters and disciples, initiations, etc. There is a very big elephant in the room (forum thread) in most discussions, which is whether anyone can claim to have more insight than anyone else on these fundamental issues. It is precisely the personal ego who says everyone's opinion, including mine, is equally valid and that there is no place for anyone deferring to anyone else's Wisdom. I disagree, and I am not placing myself as the most Wise - I know at least two others here I would defer to on most of these topics.

That doesn't mean I accept what they say on blind faith, but rather I am not "put off" if they take that tone of "we must" or "we should" (the latter is really implicit in any assertions made here). Instead I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are taking that tone because they have deeply considered the issues and want me to as well. I think that is the more gracious and less cynical approach. If we end up ignoring arguments and approaches simply because the person making them seems very confident in their validity, or they feel too "exclusive" for our taste, then we are cutting our noses to spite our face. BK often takes that tone in his interviews and I think he has earned it on matters of anti-materialist foundations of idealism as well.