[Apopohis Reject]

Thank you very much Luciddd. I hope you don't mind if I now deconstruct your post virtually sentence by sentence, and try and relate to it like a child (or perhaps moron)....

Originally Posted by Luciddd

NOTE, THAT I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS TRUE, MERELY ANSWER YOU FROM A SUBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE WHICH IS I THINK WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.

That brings up a very interesting observation with regards the difference between the objective and subjective perspective and the dissonance created by the two perspectives being perhaps out of order. For my intention was to ask about the objective - the 'truth of reality' so to speak, yet the subjective is probably what I initially really need, and as it's more immediate to the senses; also easier to explain, and in fact how we relate to our environment/experiences. Thanx for making that qualification and I hope my explanation is adequate.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

In the subjective reality framework, there are no "events" only experiences that happen one time after another.

Indeed, even though these experiences of reality would not be so much as made possible if they didn't have an objective reality to which to relate. I see it like this; a golfer hits a ball with his club - objective. But he relates not as he believes, to that objectivity, but rather to his subjectivity - how the result of the drive made him feel. So it was not a swing and hit (objective) so much as a great/good/sweet/exciting/horrid/infuriating, perhaps a hundred other emotions - *experience*. Are we resonating thus far?

Originally Posted by Luciddd

The physical world is constructed by your subconcious mind in the same way in a dream the subconsious is able to create entire worlds.

Interesting, yet there needs to be a pre-existing objective physical something for the subconscious to use for it's construction, right? The blue light waves, I (later) see.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

In our "physical world" things are solid and have coninuity, but its only the illusion of it, however at the end of the day said world is not bound by more rules than your nightly dreams. When you interact with other people you are merely exchanging experiences with other individualized consiousness. You percieve people that are only in tune with the reality you are experiencing.

So are you saying there are other people around the place who you do not recognise because they are not in tune with your reality? If this is so, surely it must be the opposite - you must lack a tuning with their subconscious reality.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

The physical world is constructed either by your physical brain doing electromagnetic interpretation,

When you say 'constructed', you are talking about the interpretation is constructed within the mentality rather than the external physicality being constructed from the subconscious, right? If so, the term 'constructed' is quite misleading. Yet now, after completing this post, I see you are most likely referring to the mentality actually creating the outside environment - my actual objective Maserati, for instance.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

or a mind that create said "objective" outputs, your brain then interprets what is written in said signals and shoot the "out there" reality, in the same way a projector shoot a movie to the screen. A good analogy would be a videogame, there is no videogame at all, merely a bunch of numbers and letters which the compiler "read" and then shoot into the scream the scenery and virtual reality of characters existing and fighting.

Whilst I find your analogy acceptable, the process dosn't sound to me so different than your first option (above).

Originally Posted by Luciddd

So about your parents and stuff, it isnt real at all. Merely these are a bunch of experienced which appear to be conected by continuity but arent really, just like a movie is conected frame per frame, but you could calmly delete a frame from the movie and it would still run. Basically experiences created second per second, given the illusion of continuity.

Again I get the last sentence, however you really can't delete a frame in the middle of a reel and continue to run if that deletion has in turn created a disconnect. Also in what way aren't my parents real? Not real people or not real in my mentality? Or both? I'm wondering at this point if you think I'm struggling with dissonance again - thinking I'm looking at your words re. the objective perspective, but it really is the subjective?

Originally Posted by Luciddd

So you are born in the world, your parents had you. (so objectively and subjectively they are real. Whew, what a relief!) But actually you only exist right now, the previous moment is gone is not real (accepted), you had a reality as a child and now as an adult. But the illusion of continuity makes you think a sequence in time is the one responsible (due to subjective perspective), you are in tune with other consiousness that perceive reality in the same way as you do, which being a child that grew in time in an objective framework. All you have really are experiences.

Well our memory is about our subjective perception of our experiences rather than objective, as I see it. So I recognise harmony here and hope you do as well.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

So in a subjective reality, you could in theory wake up tomorrow as an old man without having to age, be young again, wake up as a beggar or as the richest man in the world, as a prisoner or as a king.

But this is extremelly unlikely since the mind is likely to keep sending organized sequences that create an objective experience.

I think I can accept this theoretically, but again; does the mind also organise the objective reality apart from me? My Maserati for instance?

Originally Posted by Luciddd

At the end of the day in subjective reality if you could see things as they "really are" the only thing you would see in the entire universe more or less like this:

Ok, so my mind does organise the objective external hardware then - for me to relate to subjectively. My Maserati is objectively; simply empty blue waves?

Originally Posted by Luciddd

Countless formless waves or formless light that is traduced as a physical enviroment.

Traduced? Misrepresented by the subconscious as physical?

Originally Posted by Luciddd

Why then we perceive reality the way we do?

Who knows, some would tell you is a random experience you picked up. (I don't accept randomness in any sense) Others that your previous "karmas" or experiences left an impression in you that makes you see reality as you see it.(If this is about reincarnation, I do not accept this) Others would tell you it is your soul or higher self which is sending this information to "you" to interpret reality the way you do. (So this higher self has Intelligence? It's sounding to me like we're getting closer)

Originally Posted by Luciddd

This is a possible explanation as to why for some people LOA works since is all a matter of interpretation, the question is, is it done at an extra-physical or higher self level and as such changes would have to be done at that level? or would changing the immediate physical output be enough to bring it into "real objectivization" or "actuality" as all levels are connected?

Well Luciddd, again I thank you greatly for your time and patience in this. However here is my biggest issue right now.... If my mentality is constantly creating my Maserati where there is blue light waves, I can accept that I might be able to get into the illusion of my making and drive across town, but how does this explain my child who was asleep when I picked him up and carried him out and into his seat, also being transported by my light-wave illusion? If you respond that he is also an illusion of my subconscious, you can come over and change his stinky dirty nappies.

Finally, I can also see how you have been trying to explain the objective reality through a subjective mindset. This is the same difficulty I've been having in trying to explain my scenario, because the relating doesn't only rely upon my objective reality perception as expressed through subjective interpretation, but also the reader/listener's same issue. Yet he most likely isn't even aware of this (my) struggle and therefore dissonance, which is in itself an even bigger hurdle than mine, but added into that equation that he is most likely to be recognising the two views simultaneously, and has even less awareness of his een greater dissonance being created by all that. How frustrating is communication then?

When we recognise all this, well we can begin to appreciate what a marvelous thing it is, that we ever understand each other at any level at all.

Thanx again.