u/Long-Ad4950

Hey all... I'm an idealist and the experience feels more embodied now, and yet I still love science and mathematics even if not experiencing them as I once did. And I wonder, from within idealism, what is mathematics to you? Is math, 'the structure of shared qualia' perhaps? It feels like more than that somehow as the old magic mattered even if ironically I can consider 'well how I once related to math when my mind was more Cartesian was a qualia in itself as relating to what I saw'. So I don't know, maybe there's an answer in there, just curious, maybe it's integrating different relationships to math and realising 'they're all different angles of understanding what angles are'. Either way math remains 'real' to me, just not sure how to define it and maybe it can't be... Maybe it is a type of 'music', in that it reflects back something in how we experience life.

Hi all, for those deep into their idealist journey and Faggin really helped further inspire my thinking (as I know for some it may be more intellectual and for some more embodied), has anyone else felt the benefits of easing materialist framings of how to relate to experiences? As for me memory once felt nostalgic and 'behind me' but nowadays that feeling eased and memories feel more present with sense of behind carrying less weight. More just when a memory or 'past' experience occurs it just feels here with less wanting, longing or distance between the self and the experience.

Time still feels quite linear (e.g. October 1st still brought that first of the month feeling) but I also felt myself more conscious of deep time and the equinox recently. And the whole relevance to idealism here is in easing what materialism taught me experience is meant to be or how one 'must' relate to it. But it does change a lot but happened gently and cautiously over time, naturally through trusting idealism and many other things. It's worked well in balance. Has anyone else experienced their lives change for better through idealism? I feel this may also connect to gradual but wider shifts in experience over the generations and conscious some cultures never shifted toward Cartesian dualism to begin with.

Hi all. My name's Melissa. Relatively new here but I have been a fan of Faggin and Kastrup for some time and finding my rythm in an idealist experience of life. Does anyone else take an interest in re-considering nature and life from the idealist perspective in specific ways?

For example, (and I have a writing example below) I was wondering how idealism opens up the possibility of the superorganism of an ant colony making a phenomenological shared consciousness a possible scenario and less constantly individuated. Or among migrating wildebeest, the sense of a local self with limited ego may be real but the shared experience may be much more permeable than human experience even when we are in crowd experiences like EDM concerts or sports arenas when the individuation loosens temporarily.

I was also pondering more communal consciousness in pre-history before the rise of empires and even then what remained relatively permeable before the industrial more individualist age for some time. I feel when I read modern assumptions on pre-history I see a lot of projections from mainstream experiences of consciousness from materialist-minded experts that are capturing something real for sure (as I love science and history) but likely projecting from within the materialist paradigm. This opens up many possibilities.

I am not going to sell or promote my articles or where they are etc. but I will just for context share a few paragraphs if that's okay as it helps explain what I am sensing, this relates to the idealist-friendly lens and resonance-oriented view of neolithic and megalithic times. So it goes as follows;

"The river flows in a chorus of the night that becomes your every dawn; grass flickering in an oasis green, the sun reminding you that you are home as it reverberates through an open field.

You may have fears, you may sense this isn’t forever, but we are home here… The bright light calls the field forward from its gentle hum. And just as sleep is never agreed upon nor is the awakening.

A communal experience reflective of a wider human understanding across the continents that became quieter in recent chapters of centuries prior to this now. That’s home.

We’re moving through the sprawling grassy terrain with Earthy stones carried by the field and the warm ground, where the movement is known by the field.

Whether the River Avon in Britian where Stonehenge came to cohere or the Boyne Valley in Ireland where Newgrange would find its way, this was a world rich in meaning and depth even if something in that experience went quiet for some time."

...So this is something I wrote and connects back to the idea of writing and exploring from the idealism lens. Perhaps it could grow independently and in general in time as I feel materialism has passed it's very peak. What do you all think and does anyone else find writing from idealism or related phenomenology could grow in general? It gives me hope for the future to think about as it's likely not just me considering these things. Curious what you all think and nice to be here. Thanks :)

I have gradually expanded my interest and resonance with analytic idealism in recent years and as a newcomer to this subreddit, I wanted to share a thought I had recently and happy to join a space of those with a similar perspective.

This is in some ways repeating the irreducible nature of consciousness but in a specific way that can be phenomenologically identified. Let us say, for example, that the contents of the mind are the mind modelling itself but in conscious experience (with the consciousness of being looking in) experiencing it as awareness of awareness. Even if this were true, the raw experience remains identifiable and known immediately in a way that neuroscience does not seem capable of accounting for, which of course would be a baseline agreement here.

But making a more concise point, it seems like an immediate form of knowing that exists outside of the thoughts of the mind itself. That being that it is not the same even as every thought we have on consciousness, it is simply present in a way that proves we are not p-Zombies and verifies that the contents of experience exists. It seems like a type of verification that is genuine knowledge but is not knowledge bound to the mind or the contents of the mind itself and it's just... there.

You can find this experience land if when contemplating consciousness you say 'these thoughts may be the mind modelling itself as highlgihted by experience' and rather than needing infinite descent into dismissing each thought of the model, the very presence of experience itself simply verifies that you are conscious all the same. It is a verifying process of being it seems rather than a thought-based form of knowledge.

We still know we are conscious and this meta knowledge seems to undeniably exist that cannot be accounted for by the contents of the mind per se, at least in theory. I would argue as considering the thoughts of Federico Faggin and Bernardo Kastrup that this irreducible remaining knowing is indeed consciousness looking into the interface and that is where that knowing exists, not in the brain or contents of mind as interface representations or specified qualia. Although interesting without any qualia, this knowledge would seem not to exist, suggesting a dual interconnection at play?