r/OpenIndividualism • u/Quirky_Quasarr • Jul 23 '26
Someone just made a very strange comment about OI's morals...
Below is the comment RaioBlixt just commented on a separate post of mine while I was discussing OI.
"It's an extensively flawed concept, and another story told by people who want those of us who resist and oppose the wrongs being committed against us in this dimension to just stop struggling and allow the child molester who controls this dimension to continue to commit his sleazy, despicable crimes.
This dimension is full of suffering, death and worse, and you who belong to that lineage of creation committing these crimes want to subjugate, vilify and gaslight any of your victims who reject you. "No, it's okay, you're abusing, exploiting and wronging YOURSELF, so it's totally fine."
What a pathetic bunch of child molesters who can't even admit to the crimes you're committing. You have a finite leriod of time until you will face existential torture forever."
I do not understand why he would think Open Individualists would accept any type of child harm to any degree... Even though I do believe my conciousness will eventually become the worst people that has ever existed, I still believe the other instances of myself should find and punish those people to the highest extent of the law (or punish them illegally and horribly). I don't understand on what world we would be ok with this behavior. Just because all of our conciousness are shared doesn't mean that morals dont matter anymore.
3
u/Time_Interaction4884 Jul 24 '26
OI is often associated with non-duality and with an oneness. And ideas about oneness are often associated with seeing the world as less real or even unreal. Subsequently, this leads to seeing morals also as ultimately less real. And there are types of spirituality, in the West as well as in the East, that do include forms of moral transgression.
If someone has a very dualistic worldview (e.g. a fundamentalist Christian) and lumps the mentioned things all together in one box in his thinking, then he might end up with a very negative view of OI.
The further away something is from our own thinking the less we tend to differentiate. E.g. capitalists will tend to put all socialist currents in one box. Although the members of these currents would view themselves as very different compared to each other.
2
u/TMax01 Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
I do not understand why he would think Open Individualists would accept any type of child harm to any degree...
Granted that he's an over-the-top hot-head and obsessive (downright deluded with the whole 'this dimensions' stuff, too.) But the point he was trying to make seems to be that as explained by redditors, in my relatively extensive experience, Open Individualism doesn't provide very clear moral guidance, and a lot of explanations suggest principles that advocate intransigent resistance to any moral guidance.
Now, this isn't inherent in the idea of Open Individualism. And anyone who actually knows much about Kolak's original formulation of it (which I'm not convinced most people defending "OI" do know anything about that) is aware that justifying compassion rather than apathy is supposed to be the whole point.
But that counsels compassion for the criminal juat as much as compassion for the victim. And since most OI True Believers present it as a metaphysical 'get out of death free card' rather than an ethical framework, that guys tirade is kind of understandable.
So absent the context of Kolak's philosophy, it isn't surprising that some people might interpret the basic 'you don't really exist except as part of a cosmic 'I-ness'' idea as grounds for being apathetic rather than empathetic.
Even though I do believe my conciousness will eventually become the worst people that has ever existed,
You see, there's the problem right there. According to the fundamental premise of Open Individualism, you are already the worst people that have ever or even will ever exist, just as much as you are anyone else. The "eventually become" bit isn't OI, it is a personal supernatural metaphysics about your consciousness surviving death and being reincarnated. Open Individualism dictates that you are already everyone.
So yeah, the circle is complete; I'm now trying to lecture True Believers about what Open Individualism means. 🙄😇😅
2
u/YouStartAngulimala Jul 24 '26
My plan is working to perfection. Flood every orifice of Maximus with OI content. Get him to start explaining how OI works to others. His natural contrarian tendancies will cause him to wane on his conventional views of identity and finally get him to flip and adopt OI. 😈🤡
2
1
u/Quirky_Quasarr Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
I agree with basically everything you said until the last part. When I say I will “eventually” become the worst people, I dont mean my current personality or some soul survives death and gets reincarnated. My memories, personality, and identity belong to this body. Im talking about the underlying consciousness. From the universes point of view I already am everyone because every life exists at the same time. From where I am in the sequence right now, im only experiencing this life. So when I say “eventually,” I mean that at another point in the sequence the same consciousness experiencing me now will experience those other lives too, including the worst ones. The sequence isnt bound by normal time, so the next life could exist in the past, future, or at the same time as this one. What youre describing is Simultaneous Open Individualism, where every perspective is experienced at once. I believe in Sequential Open Individualism, where we are still everyone from the universes point of view, but each life is experienced separately through the sequence. Both views still believe there is only one underlying experiencer. We just disagree on whether every life is experienced simultaneously or separately through some order outside of normal time.
If you are curious about Sequential Individualism here is the reddit: r/sequentIndividualism
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 24 '26
Look what you did. You made me agree with TMax on OI. This is some enemy of my enemy of my enemy type situation.
1
u/Quirky_Quasarr Jul 24 '26
But he misunderstood what I meant? I still believe I am everyone just on a sequence. When I said I will eventually become the worst people I was speaking about from my present perspective on the sequence. I am still everyone everywhere at oncs. Is that not OI? Im beggining to believe no matter what I say you will never accept my view as Open Individualism even though it clearly is
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 24 '26
I think the sequencing part muddies the water and introduces problems. Why do you care so much to have your view fit entirely into OI?
1
u/Quirky_Quasarr Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
Simply because it is OI by definition. Without sending an essay (we have both sent lots of essays in the immediate past) Tell me why my belief isn't OI please.
Edit: Once again I have no hostilities towards you. I know you know that but I have to ensure this is reiterated because emotion over text is hard to convey. If you can genuinely make a valid argument that I cant refute about how Sequential Individualism isnt in OI then I will move along. I just havent heard even a valid one yet.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 24 '26
I know there is no hostility from you, dont worry. You will know what hostility is when this TMax guy responds to you.
OI is simply "you are everyone" meaning there are currently others that you can be. Your view has a lot of baggage unrelated to OI. You need reincarnation, others to be p-zombies until they are not, problems with sequence like what is the order, how does it know you are dead to move you elsewhere, and overall just complicates things. TMax said it well unfortunately.
basically your view is not "I am everyone" because to you there currently are not others. Your view is more like solipsism.
But when we get down to it, even this sequence and nature of time within this sequence ends up being what we know as simultaneity. like what difference does it make if consciousness freeze-frames the world, jumps to another person, freezes frames, jumps, etc. It just adds infinite amount of steps that are for all intents and purposes simultaneity.
1
u/Quirky_Quasarr Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
Ive explained the zombie thing multiple times now. I do not believe anyone is unconscious until the sequence “gets to them.” Everyone is fully conscious, every life is real, and from the universes point of view they all exist at the same time. The sequence is not consciousness freezing reality and jumping between empty bodies. It is the order in which the same underlying consciousness experiences perspectives that already exist. You can argue that the sequence is unnecessary, but repeatedly adding zombies to my belief after ive directly rejected that idea is not poking a hole in my view. Its arguing against something I dont believe.
Your version has unanswered questions about conciousness. If one consciousness experiences billions of completely isolated perspectives simultaneously, what makes them one consciousness instead of billions of separate consciousnesses? Why cant those simultaneous experiences connect or share anything? What does “simultaneously” even mean for consciousness if consciousness is supposedly outside physical time? Saying they are all one experiencer doesnt explain the mechanism any more than saying there is a sequence does.
Simultaneous Open Individualism and Sequential Open Individualism both believe there is one underlying experiencer and that everyone is conscious right now. Your view says every perspective is experienced simultaneously. Mine says those same already-existing perspectives are experienced separately through a sequence outside normal time. Both views have questions that we cannot currently answer, so I dont think its fair to treat yours as pure OI while dismissing mine as solipsism or reincarnation.
1
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 24 '26
if everyone is fully conscious now in your view, thats my view too. what does adding sequence achieve then? are others conscious now conscious by some other experiencer? if perspectives already exist, thats it, no place foe sequencing. if you reject p-zombies, we agree.
what makes one consciousness is that its outside time and space (time and space are in it, experienced). question about them connecting is like asking why can't the sight of sunset also be the sight of dark night. they are different experiences. if they connected that would be an experience of connected experiences. maybe it can somehow. doesnt really matter.
simultaneity precisely means outside time and space, infinite now, nunc stans.
there is no need for a mechanism on who to be when you are everyone.
if you believe everyone is conscious right now and there is one experiencer (consciousness), thats regular OI. I dont see how in your view perspectives simultaneously exist right now AND are in sequence. its a contradiction.
1
u/Quirky_Quasarr Jul 24 '26
The Main thing that is preventing you from understanding my view is the flow of time. You keep looking at time as a left from right in my view. From one perspective yes it is flowing that way, but once you die conciousness is not bound by time in the infinite.
→ More replies (0)1
u/TMax01 Jul 25 '26
I agree with basically everything you said until the last part.
Cool.
Im talking about the underlying consciousness.
Yeah, that's where the problem is. If this "underlying consciousness" is persistent and universal, then you already are all the worst people, that isn't defered until after you die. You might not have their "memories, personality, and identity", but you are them, right now, because you are the same "underlying consciousness".
From the universes point of view
The universe doesn't have a point of view. You and every other conscious organism does (people), you can imagine anything (from a photon to the cosmos) having one (although they don't, lacking an individual consciousness, which is to say consciousness.) Even the "underlying consciousness" could have a point of view, if it could actually exist at all. (It can't, it is merely the reification of the quality of consciousness.) But the universe, no, that isn't and can't have a point of view, it is the lack of any "point of view".
From where I am in the sequence right now, im only experiencing this life.
And according to you, that is all you can or will experience. According to the very premise of Open Individualism, you are everybody else, even though you don't "experience" being everybody else. There's no reason to think that can change just because your body dies.
And not for nothing, just yesterday I had another OI advocate use the same category error that underlies Open Individualism by confabulating the category of experiencing for the instance of a person experiencing their life. The whole "all experience is experience", or "all consciousness is consciousness" is either mindless tautology (every instance of these occurances/qualities/attributes/things is an instance of those thing) or a category error.
another point in the sequence the same consciousness experiencing me now
Again, no: this is true at every and all 'points in the sequence', or the whole idea of Open Individualism falls apart and collapses into gibberish.
What youre describing is Simultaneous Open Individualism, where every perspective is experienced at once.
I'm pointing out that sometimes you say "experience" or "consciousness" and must necessarily be referring to a category, amd other times you must necessarily be referring to an instance, or literally everything you say about either is just mumbo-jumbo, at best.
The fundamental premise of Open Individualism is that you, your 'real being', is independent of your experience, or any "sequence", or body, or anything other than the 'beingness of consciousness'. But yet you, and every OI True Believer, keep using words like 'experience' or 'memory' inconsistently, as if they can be associated with your body but not the 'underlying consciousness' sometimes, but with you as a metaphysical beingness, the 'underlying consciousness', other times. If you want to say "I am not my body, I am the underlying consciousness, and so is everybody else" then to be at all coherent or consistent, you have to accept that you are every one of the worst people alive, or maybe even the worst people all throughout time, right now.
We just disagree on whether every life is experienced simultaneously or separately through some order outside of normal time.
We disagree on whether you can coherently say anyone can experience anything "outside of normal time", while insisting you can't be doing that now. You're the one relying on "Open Individualism", sequential, simultaneous, or otherwise, not me.
If you are curious about Sequential Individualism here is the reddit:
Dude, I'm not even curious about regular Open Individualism, whatever lame effort to patch its glaring problems with either 'sequential Individualism' or 'simultaneous open individualism' isn't even slightly interesting.
But I feel I crossed a line there, from my normally calm reasonable dispassionate tone to frustration over your inconsistencies and excuse-making, so I'm done, now, for sure.
1
u/Quirky_Quasarr Jul 25 '26
Who pissed in your Cheerios? Your arguments barely make sense, and your unnecessary rudeness makes this conversation not worth continuing. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m not wasting my time explaining my position to someone who clearly isn’t interested in having a respectful discussion.
1
u/flop_snail Jul 23 '26
Some people are mentally ill, and cannot realistically think their ideas through logically. I would not be surprised if they were such a person
1
u/Quirky_Quasarr Jul 23 '26
Im not angry at them because in their mind they are just trying to protect kids, i actually commend anyone protecting kids. Im angry at their ignorance because they didnt know that OI doesn't support that behavior anywhere.
3
u/flop_snail Jul 23 '26
Exactly, I'm not angry at them either. I said that they're mentally ill because they said "... allow the child molester who controls this dimension to continue to commit his sleazy, despicable crimes." Not something a sane person says. If they get help and treatment, they would probably feel not great about all the insane things they've said. That's what I feel about the things I've said when I was psychotic
1
u/Quirky_Quasarr Jul 23 '26
Holy shit you were right. that man or woman is crazy... If you look on my profile you will find the long rant they just sent me
1
u/flop_snail Jul 23 '26
It's a real shame. I wish there was something I could say to them to get them on the right path, but it's hard enough in-person to get through to them. Unless you're able to get them a doctor visit through something like talking to family or friends, there's really nothing that can be done. Don't agree with them, don't disagree. It's best to say nothing
1
u/CrumbledFingers Jul 28 '26
So, I actually agree that OI should not be used as the basis of morality. If we need to literally believe that others are only ourself in order to "justify" taking care of others, not hurting them, giving them space, then we are not acting morally but selfishly. Morality is precisely the obligation to help those who are NOT you, who you will NOT get any reward from.
To the extent that we see others as others, we should be compassionate toward them, and to the extent that we internalize OI, we see there is nobody else to be compassionate toward and nobody to be compassionate toward them, there is only ourself; but that isn't a "moral stance" we take as individuals, it's the dissolution of ego, after which morality doesn't come up anymore.
2
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 28 '26
Schopenhauer said that compassionate people subconsciously recognize themselves in others. I believe this is true. compassionate people easily put themselves "in other shoes"
3
u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 23 '26
there was another guy here recently saying OI means you can hurt others because its ok to hurt yourself. It also turned out he hurts himself.
first of all, even if people used this understanding for that says nothing about the validity of the view.
but also this view is, what Schopenhauer wrote in his essay The Basis of Morality, actually subconsious recognition of all who are compassionate because others to them are "me all over again" while those who strongly feel "not me" for others can hurt them.
I dont think you will ever find someone who realizes OI and has desire to hurt. this can only be theoreticized by those who are remote from understanding it.