Creation of the Universalism Discussion list

[Jason Resch]

This is the first post to the Universalism Discussion list. This list was created to discuss universalism (a.k.a. open individualism) which is a theory of personal identity that proposes there is numerically one person to which all experience belongs.

This list may be accessed on the web at:

https://groups.google.com/g/universalism-discussion

Or it may be accessed through e-mail via the address:

universalis...@googlegroups.com

If you would like to invite someone to the list, provide them the web link above and they can sign up. 

Best,

Jason Resch 

[Zuboff, Arnold]

Thank you! I’m sure that establishing this discussion group is great, though I’m not sure yet how it works.

Could I suggest a change in the identifying description?

The one you use to my ears makes it sound as though universalism may be a mystical view that I am some occult single thing.

I also don’t want actually to equate universalism to open individualism with an ‘aka’. I think at least the basic approach of open individualism—through its three-fold classification of ‘individualisms’—is very unhelpful. But of course I would agree with you that it is important to let those familiar with that view know that this one is ‘akin’ to it, as I’ve put it below.

The description below is just an initial suggestion. It may well be too long! Maybe just something like the first paragraph?

This list was created to discuss ‘universalism’, a view akin to ‘open individualism’. Universalism is a theory that proposes that the seeming boundaries of personal identity are illusory, that all experience is equally mine purely because any experience being mine depends only on its first-person immediate character—a character possessed equally by the experience of all conscious beings.

According to universalism, my presence in the world and my genuine self-interest extend to all conscious life. I am all conscious beings but nearly always powerfully deceived by the non-integration of the contents of the experience in separate organisms into thinking that experience being mine is limited to the experience of only one of the organisms. (This is like what I would experience with brain bisection: In the experience of either non-connecting hemisphere I would be falsely thinking that its content is all I am experiencing. But I must be experiencing the content in both.)

On 3 Dec 2023, at 3:20 pm, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:



⚠ Caution: External sender

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Universalism (Philosophy of Personal Identity)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to universalism-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/universalism-discussion/73475257-c691-4c25-85eb-c86b3581504en%40googlegroups.com.

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 1:37 PM Zuboff, Arnold <a.zu...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

Thank you! I’m sure that establishing this discussion group is great, though I’m not sure yet how it works.

Could I suggest a change in the identifying description?

The one you use to my ears makes it sound as though universalism may be a mystical view that I am some occult single thing.

I also don’t want actually to equate universalism to open individualism with an ‘aka’. I think at least the basic approach of open individualism—through its three-fold classification of ‘individualisms’—is very unhelpful. But of course I would agree with you that it is important to let those familiar with that view know that this one is ‘akin’ to it, as I’ve put it below.

The description below is just an initial suggestion. It may well be too long! Maybe just something like the first paragraph?

This list was created to discuss ‘universalism’, a view akin to ‘open individualism’. Universalism is a theory that proposes that the seeming boundaries of personal identity are illusory, that all experience is equally mine purely because any experience being mine depends only on its first-person immediate character—a character possessed equally by the experience of all conscious beings.

According to universalism, my presence in the world and my genuine self-interest extend to all conscious life. I am all conscious beings but nearly always powerfully deceived by the non-integration of the contents of the experience in separate organisms into thinking that experience being mine is limited to the experience of only one of the organisms. (This is like what I would experience with brain bisection: In the experience of either non-connecting hemisphere I would be falsely thinking that its content is all I am experiencing. But I must be experiencing the content in both.)

Hi Arnold,

I noted that the google groups description is limited to 300 characters. Unfortunately this is not even long enough to contain all of the first paragraph above. What do you think about this:

"This list was created to discuss 'universalism', a view akin to ‘open individualism’. Universalism is a theory that proposes that the boundaries of personal identity are illusory, and that all experience is equally mine because it all has a first-person immediate character."

It comes in at 274 characters.

Jason

P.S. This discussion is occurring through the Universalism Discussion list, and so your recommended longer description above will nonetheless still remain part of the initial history of the group.

[Zuboff, Arnold]

That sounds very good to me. You like it?

On 3 Dec 2023, at 6:58 pm, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:



⚠ Caution: External sender

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Universalism (Philosophy of Personal Identity)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to universalism-disc...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/universalism-discussion/CA%2BBCJUjC9TCj1aNdZ%2BFuey3GnkMvFYFAWCPJsC7A4AAL%2Bz6R9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 3:04 PM Zuboff, Arnold <a.zu...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

That sounds very good to me. You like it?

I do. I've just updated the group's description to match it.

Jason