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

[AshvinP]

I think this entire way of reasoning is missing the most foundational aspect of idealism - we are all One in essence. It may actually reach that conclusion, but it comes at the expense of flawed reasoning which then undermines the entire efficacy of reaching the conclusion. Basically it asks us to identify with a "personal" ego (as we normally do now), and then reason from there what our "chances" are of having any experience from that perspective under different ontologies. So then it concludes the only reasonable odds come under idealism. In doing so, it perpetuates the modern fantasy that there are "personal" ego-perspectives within the One, rather than all perspectives being microcosmic expressions of the One.

Look at the related wikipedia links, you will find "Open individualism" that basically agrees with your position.

Right, but the main criticism I have is in bold above. We have a tendency to think conclusions, as concepts and beliefs we hold, have some sort of inherent value in themselves. But that really goes against the grain of all spiritual traditions which have expressed these views, especially the ancient Eastern ones. The value is in the experience and, for esoteric Western spirituality, reasoning through that experience to the conclusion. That is where we find the "praxis" for our daily lives which is at the core of all these traditions. We have forgotten that in the modern age. Even the people who associate with Eastern mystical tradition seem to undervalue that aspect and feel that, apart from their personal times of meditative solace, endless abstract speculation about these things is the best path forward because it is the only path they perceive. But that speculative process can end up undermining the very core of the spiritual approach. So I was just pointing out the "what are the chances?" lottery ticket argument seems like one of those counter-productive speculative ones.

[Hedge90]

One of the possible answers to such formulation of the "vertiginous question" is the classical solipsism: there is only one "live" field of experience exactly because there is in fact only one. Another answer is the "sequential live experience": there is only one "live" experience but it traverses sequentially through all individuated fields of experience "one at a time". There is also a possibility of the existence of a multitude of live experiences, but this possibility still faces the "vertiginous question" (why "this" live experience is experienced exactly "here" in this individuated field right now?)

I think classical solipsism doesn't answer the question any better. If there is indeed only one subjective perspective, then the question turns from "why am I this particular subject" to "why is the subject experiencing reality from this particular POV"? And then it leads to the same absurd improbability.
Sequential live experience is something I've thought about, but there are a few problems with it. Firstly, how are the experiences synchronised? The person whose life was experienced first had to go through the same coherent reality as the last, so it only makes sense if it's a fully deterministic thing that has been set up in advance. The other problem is, whether "sequentiality" even makes sense in this regard. Sequentiality is generally a chain of cause and effect. What cause and effect mechanism causes consciousness to live the various experiences in a specific order, so that I'm currently living this, and the next one is, say, Ricky Gervais'? Is it random? If so, what is the mechanism of that randomness when the world itself, as we've established, must be deterministic in this scenario?
So the third option still makes the most sense in my opinion.

[Eugene I]

I think the "vertiginous question" belongs to the category of unanswerable questions along with "why there is something rather than nothing"

[Papanca]

One of the possible answers to such formulation of the "vertiginous question" is the classical solipsism: there is only one "live" field of experience exactly because there is in fact only one. Another answer is the "sequential live experience": there is only one "live" experience but it traverses sequentially through all individuated fields of experience "one at a time". There is also a possibility of the existence of a multitude of live experiences, but this possibility still faces the "vertiginous question" (why "this" live experience is experienced exactly "here" in this individuated field right now?)

I think classical solipsism doesn't answer the question any better. If there is indeed only one subjective perspective, then the question turns from "why am I this particular subject" to "why is the subject experiencing reality from this particular POV"? And then it leads to the same absurd improbability.
Sequential live experience is something I've thought about, but there are a few problems with it. Firstly, how are the experiences synchronised? The person whose life was experienced first had to go through the same coherent reality as the last, so it only makes sense if it's a fully deterministic thing that has been set up in advance. The other problem is, whether "sequentiality" even makes sense in this regard. Sequentiality is generally a chain of cause and effect. What cause and effect mechanism causes consciousness to live the various experiences in a specific order, so that I'm currently living this, and the next one is, say, Ricky Gervais'? Is it random? If so, what is the mechanism of that randomness when the world itself, as we've established, must be deterministic in this scenario?
So the third option still makes the most sense in my opinion.

According to "Open Individualism", you are actually all the current perspectives, but as consciousness can only be experienced from a particular perspective, you only have access to this one for this moment, the same way you only don't have access to something you've experienced 10 years ago but forgotten.

But i agree that no particular philosophy of personal identity perfectly answers the question, all of them have their advantages and weak points :

Closed Individualism : You are a particular unchanging self that lasts for your whole life and then disappears (or go to heaven/hell in the most primitive interpretations of monotheistic religions), it fails to explain what exactly constitutes identity : Our ideas/personality/goals can all change. Is it the specific structure of the brain ? But then we go into the problem of what's so special about that structure to be the singular/exclusive carrier of your particular identity.

Empty Individualism : You are only a slice/point in time. It's close to the buddhist position. The Buddha for instance starts by dissecting the self, starting from the idiosyncratic view that if you don't control something it can't be your self (for instance you can't make your body or hair grow), then focusing on the aggreates of vision/mind etc and finding them all constantly changing. The problem with this particular view is that it doesn't explain why our identity feels constant through time, and the buddha has never dissected/dissolved the "perspectival self", which is not related to content, but only to the meeness of experience, how an experience feels live from a particular perspective. It's not some content superimposed to the experience, it's just how experience is/it comes inherently with a particular perspective, this is the perspectival self. Not some stable homunculus throning over thoughts and actions etc.

Open Individualism : It dissolves some of the problems of closed individualism/Empty individualism but brings its own problem, the one you've referred too.

[Papanca]

I think the "vertiginous question" belongs to the category of unanswerable questions along with "why there is something rather than nothing"

I agree, but i think it can serves as a good koan/pointer and it's intrinsically related to the hard problem of consciousness.

[Eugene I]

I agree, but i think it can serves as a good koan/pointer and it's intrinsically related to the hard problem of consciousness.

Yes, it is. It tells us that the simple answer to the "hard problem" that "consciousness just fundamentally exists" is still insufficient and still has serious explanatory gaps.

[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.

[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.

We can also examine this from within our own individual perceptual-cognitive development from infancy to adulthood. Clearly there is major qualitative transformation which occurs during those developmental stages, but no one ever thinks to claim their essential "I" which undergirds all the experiences has changed (once it emerges in childhood). The same should apply to collective human development, which is also clearly reflected in the development of myth, art, philosophy, religion, science, politics, economics, etc.

[Eugene I]

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.

I agree, and that actually applies to any metaphysical questions in general. Even the answer to the question of "what is the ontological fundamental" (matter, shmatter, consciousness, shmonsciousness, even if there is any answer at all and if we could comprehend it) would be irrelevant to our existence, unless we just can not make ourselves live without having something to religiously believe in. Not that we should not dare to ask these question, but that we should not make our lives dependent on the specific answers that makes us happier for whatever reason. In other words, we should not dictate reality what it should be based on our preferences.

[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.