In your opinion, what is the ontology that provides the most satisfying answer to the "vertiginous question" ?

[Hedge90]

What now came to my mind is that one of my friends told me that in an LSD trip, he was 4 persons at the same time, experiencing each in a totally detailed and self-contained, yet simultaneous manner. I wonder how usual this kind of experience is. It really fits with the notion of everything is experienced by a single "I" at the same time, but normally any given "bundle's" experience feels like it's the only thing going on.
To be honest sometimes I feel like we just shouldn't dwell so much on questions like that. The answer (if we could even comprehend it) would really not change anything.

You are right we should not "dwell" on the question, as in abstractly speculate about it forever like many in modern culture and on this forum like to do, but we should seriously investigate it. The notion that knowledge of the underlying structure of Reality, including the essential nature of the "I" by which we experience all the World Content, "would really not change anything" is practically the definition of nihilism. It is a decision to treat one's superficial egoic preferences of how Reality "should be" as more important than selflessly aligning the ego with the structure of Reality as it actually is. That is probably the most self-evidently true observation, but somehow people manage to convince themselves it's the opposite - perpetually dwelling (speculating) within one's own egoic preferences is considered "selfless" and sacrificially serving the greater Whole in full knowing consciousness is considered "selfish". Go figure.

I haven't said anywhere that we shouldn't explore anything that can be explored. On the contrary, that's what life is about to a huge extent in my opinion. I meant that thinking about problems that have no real solution that can be arrived at by either logic or observation is ultimately useless.

[Papanca]

What now came to my mind is that one of my friends told me that in an LSD trip, he was 4 persons at the same time, experiencing each in a totally detailed and self-contained, yet simultaneous manner. I wonder how usual this kind of experience is. It really fits with the notion of everything is experienced by a single "I" at the same time, but normally any given "bundle's" experience feels like it's the only thing going on.
To be honest sometimes I feel like we just shouldn't dwell so much on questions like that. The answer (if we could even comprehend it) would really not change anything.

You are right we should not "dwell" on the question, as in abstractly speculate about it forever like many in modern culture and on this forum like to do, but we should seriously investigate it. The notion that knowledge of the underlying structure of Reality, including the essential nature of the "I" by which we experience all the World Content, "would really not change anything" is practically the definition of nihilism. It is a decision to treat one's superficial egoic preferences of how Reality "should be" as more important than selflessly aligning the ego with the structure of Reality as it actually is. That is probably the most self-evidently true observation, but somehow people manage to convince themselves it's the opposite - perpetually dwelling (speculating) within one's own egoic preferences is considered "selfless" and sacrificially serving the greater Whole in full knowing consciousness is considered "selfish". Go figure.

I haven't said anywhere that we shouldn't explore anything that can be explored. On the contrary, that's what life is about to a huge extent in my opinion. I meant that thinking about problems that have no real solution that can be arrived at by either logic or observation is ultimately useless.

Sure but you are in a forum concerned with metaphysics.

[Hedge90]

You are right we should not "dwell" on the question, as in abstractly speculate about it forever like many in modern culture and on this forum like to do, but we should seriously investigate it. The notion that knowledge of the underlying structure of Reality, including the essential nature of the "I" by which we experience all the World Content, "would really not change anything" is practically the definition of nihilism. It is a decision to treat one's superficial egoic preferences of how Reality "should be" as more important than selflessly aligning the ego with the structure of Reality as it actually is. That is probably the most self-evidently true observation, but somehow people manage to convince themselves it's the opposite - perpetually dwelling (speculating) within one's own egoic preferences is considered "selfless" and sacrificially serving the greater Whole in full knowing consciousness is considered "selfish". Go figure.

I haven't said anywhere that we shouldn't explore anything that can be explored. On the contrary, that's what life is about to a huge extent in my opinion. I meant that thinking about problems that have no real solution that can be arrived at by either logic or observation is ultimately useless.

Sure but you are in a forum concerned with metaphysics.

Metaphysics in itself is not inaccessible to logic and induction based on observable phenomena. I was speaking about the things discussed in page 2 of this thread.

[AshvinP]

What now came to my mind is that one of my friends told me that in an LSD trip, he was 4 persons at the same time, experiencing each in a totally detailed and self-contained, yet simultaneous manner. I wonder how usual this kind of experience is. It really fits with the notion of everything is experienced by a single "I" at the same time, but normally any given "bundle's" experience feels like it's the only thing going on.
To be honest sometimes I feel like we just shouldn't dwell so much on questions like that. The answer (if we could even comprehend it) would really not change anything.

You are right we should not "dwell" on the question, as in abstractly speculate about it forever like many in modern culture and on this forum like to do, but we should seriously investigate it. The notion that knowledge of the underlying structure of Reality, including the essential nature of the "I" by which we experience all the World Content, "would really not change anything" is practically the definition of nihilism. It is a decision to treat one's superficial egoic preferences of how Reality "should be" as more important than selflessly aligning the ego with the structure of Reality as it actually is. That is probably the most self-evidently true observation, but somehow people manage to convince themselves it's the opposite - perpetually dwelling (speculating) within one's own egoic preferences is considered "selfless" and sacrificially serving the greater Whole in full knowing consciousness is considered "selfish". Go figure.

I haven't said anywhere that we shouldn't explore anything that can be explored. On the contrary, that's what life is about to a huge extent in my opinion. I meant that thinking about problems that have no real solution that can be arrived at by either logic or observation is ultimately useless.

How have you determined there are no "real solutions"? I am saying that conclusion is not born of serious investigation, but personal preference of one sort or another. As I also commented to Adur on another thread, this approach prematurely forecloses on the possibility of ever traveling high enough to see how the mountain peaks and valleys connect with each other. In general, I say we approach all such clearly significant questions with the mindset "this can definitely be answered or at least clarified greatly". Think of Pascal's wager - if that turns out to be wrong, what have we lost but some time which we tend to waste anyway?

[Hedge90]

You are right we should not "dwell" on the question, as in abstractly speculate about it forever like many in modern culture and on this forum like to do, but we should seriously investigate it. The notion that knowledge of the underlying structure of Reality, including the essential nature of the "I" by which we experience all the World Content, "would really not change anything" is practically the definition of nihilism. It is a decision to treat one's superficial egoic preferences of how Reality "should be" as more important than selflessly aligning the ego with the structure of Reality as it actually is. That is probably the most self-evidently true observation, but somehow people manage to convince themselves it's the opposite - perpetually dwelling (speculating) within one's own egoic preferences is considered "selfless" and sacrificially serving the greater Whole in full knowing consciousness is considered "selfish". Go figure.

I haven't said anywhere that we shouldn't explore anything that can be explored. On the contrary, that's what life is about to a huge extent in my opinion. I meant that thinking about problems that have no real solution that can be arrived at by either logic or observation is ultimately useless.

How have you determined there are no "real solutions"? I am saying that conclusion is not born of serious investigation, but personal preference of one sort or another. As I also commented to Adur on another thread, this approach prematurely forecloses on the possibility of ever traveling high enough to see how the mountain peaks and valleys connect with each other. In general, I say we approach all such clearly significant questions with the mindset "this can definitely be answered or at least clarified greatly". Think of Pascal's wager - if that turns out to be wrong, what have we lost but some time which we tend to waste anyway?

Well, to me this seems like a philosophically unresolvable issue. No matter how far you expand your consciousness, you will always be experiencing from 1st persion view and at a given moment. To solve this problem you'd have to have a theoretical 3rd person perspective on the entirety of reality and Self itself, across some meta-timeline, so that you can see which version is true. As someone wrote before, it's like the "Why is there something rather than nothing" question.

[AshvinP]

I haven't said anywhere that we shouldn't explore anything that can be explored. On the contrary, that's what life is about to a huge extent in my opinion. I meant that thinking about problems that have no real solution that can be arrived at by either logic or observation is ultimately useless.

How have you determined there are no "real solutions"? I am saying that conclusion is not born of serious investigation, but personal preference of one sort or another. As I also commented to Adur on another thread, this approach prematurely forecloses on the possibility of ever traveling high enough to see how the mountain peaks and valleys connect with each other. In general, I say we approach all such clearly significant questions with the mindset "this can definitely be answered or at least clarified greatly". Think of Pascal's wager - if that turns out to be wrong, what have we lost but some time which we tend to waste anyway?

Well, to me this seems like a philosophically unresolvable issue. No matter how far you expand your consciousness, you will always be experiencing from 1st persion view and at a given moment. To solve this problem you'd have to have a theoretical 3rd person perspective on the entirety of reality and Self itself, across some meta-timeline, so that you can see which version is true. As someone wrote before, it's like the "Why is there something rather than nothing" question.

It is like the "why is there something rather than nothing question" because the question of the essential "I" is rather self-evident from the 1st person perspective, which you rightly point out is the only one we can know. Fichte put it this way:


"The ‘I’ posits itself, and it is by virtue of this mere positing of itself; and conversely: The ‘I’ is, and posits its existence, by virtue of its mere existence. It is at the same time the one acting and the product of its action; the active one and what is brought forth by the activity; action and deed are one and the same; and therefore the ‘I am’ is the expression of an active deed."

- Gottlieb Fichte, The Vocation of Man (1799)


Now if we want to hone in on the particulars of our current relation with the essential "I", which is really the most important part, then we need to expand our consciousness as you also rightly point out. Why do we need to encompass "the entirety of reality" to gain meaningful resolution on these details? It's not all or nothing when it comes to direct experience and knowledge, as we take for granted in all other knowing endeavors we engage. And, moreover, there is no reason to limit our 1st person perspective if that perspective is, in fact, a microcosmic expression of the Macrocosm. As Gebser puts it, we have evolved the capacity for a "time-free" 'aperspectival' consciousness which can survey temporal phenomena as freely as we can look around our room right now and survey various objects. And we actually have someone on this forum who can relate some basics of that experience to us - see Cleric's The Time-Consciousness Spectrum essay.