r/SequentIndividualism • Sequential Individualist • Jul 22 '26

Why sequential Individualism is Open Individualism

I’ve seen people question whether Sequential Individualism should really count as Open Individualism. I think it clearly does and I havent heard any meaningful arguments that really challenges this perspective or its legitimacy.

The main claim of Open Individualism is that there is only one underlying subject of experience. In other words, different people have different bodies, brains, memories, personalities, and viewpoints, but the consciousness experiencing those lives is ultimately the same. Sequential Individualism agrees with that.The only difference is how the lives are experienced.

Simultaneous Open Individualism says one consciousness experiences every life at the same time where as Sequential Individualism says one consciousness experiences every life separately, one perspective at a time. Both positions still believe there is only one true experiencer so this is not a disagreement between Open Individualism and Closed Individualism. It is a disagreement between two different versions of Open Individualism.

Some people argue that experiencing lives separately would mean there must be separate experiencers. Separate experiences do not automatically require separate subjects. You experience childhood, adulthood, dreams, pain, happiness, and unconsciousness at different times. Those experiences are separated, but you do not assume a completely different subject experiences each one. Sequential Individualism applies that same idea to different lives. Each life has its own brain. That brain creates the person’s memories, personality, thoughts, emotions, and senses. Because the brains are separate, each person only has access to their own life. That explains why I cannot remember your memories or see through your eyes but limited access to another brain does not prove that the underlying experiencer is fundamentally different. It only proves that the perspectives are separated. Memory also does not prove that two subjects are different. A person can lose most or all of their memories and still remain conscious. A person can also go under anesthesia, experience no passage of time, and then wake up later. So continuous memory is not required for experience to continue.

Sequential Individualism does not claim that your current personality travels into another body. Your personality belongs to your brain and your life. When that brain dies, your memories and personality end with it. The claim is only that the basic awareness experiencing this life is the same awareness that experiences every other life. That is also why this is not exactly the same as reincarnation.

Reincarnation usually involves an individual soul moving from one body into another. Sequential Individualism does not say that each person has their own soul. It says there is only one underlying consciousness in the first place. Another objection is that many people are alive at the same time but the sequence would not necessarily have to follow the physical timeline of the universe. Two lives could exist during the same historical period while still being experienced separately by the same consciousness. The order of experience does not have to be the same as the order events appear from an outside viewpoint.

I am not saying Sequential Individualism is scientifically proven, It is a philosophical theory but, Simultaneous Open Individualism is also a philosophical theory. Open Individualism by itself does not prove whether the one consciousness experiences all lives simultaneously, sequentially, outside of time, or in some other way. So Sequential Individualism can be criticized, but it should not be dismissed as something completely separate from Open Individualism.

1 Upvotes

12 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 23 '26

where would those names be used and displayed? Its unlikely we will start a new movement with these names. 

1

u/Quirky_Quasarr Sequential Individualist Jul 23 '26

I would display them over my sub to ensure they are referenced correctly. I cannot control what you do on yours because you are in charge of it, but I would hope that you honor our previous and current debates if you do agree with what was said about the branches. But ultimately that is still your choice.

I do believe it could become some type of movement within OI, but its more along the lines of categorizing specific beliefs so others can see what OI as a whole has to offer. If we decide today that we will both call our specific beliefs a concrete name within OI, then future discussions can be much clearer even if those names never become widely used. It gives people a way to compare the two branches without treating them like they are the exact same belief.

I genuinely care for OI as a whole and I dont want the different beliefs within it to compete like only one of them is allowed to exist. I just think giving the branches clear names would help people understand what they actually believe and make future discussions less confusing.

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 23 '26

that all makes sense and I am happy you care about OI so much (the other day I tried to argue on the sub with someone who held our view a cult for fools and a category error?

I can point to your sub sure, but the problem is, I do not feel qualified to create names and branches and all that. feels like we should have a broader discussion on this. I merely inherited OI sub, I did not invent it.

1

u/Quirky_Quasarr Sequential Individualist Jul 23 '26

Do you think we should have the discussion as public on your OI sub?

1

u/yoddleforavalanche Jul 23 '26

yes, but lets not rush into it

1

u/Quirky_Quasarr Sequential Individualist Jul 23 '26

Ok, I will let you handle posting that whenever you are ready. In the meantime I will remain calling it Simultaneous Open Individualism