Although my cranial contents feel like a quivering mush right now, and my eyes can't so much as focus on these keys any longer, I'm going to post the following, even though I'm not even certain any longer if it was myself who typed it....
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot
Then you have to decide which is the point you don't buy it.
- Your parents are made of muscles, bones, skin etc. Do you buy this or not? **
- Muscles, bones, skin are made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen atoms in different combinations. Do you buy this or not? **
- C, H and O are made of atoms. Do you buy this or not? **
- Atoms are mostly empty space and some electrons, protons and neutrons. Do you buy this or not? **
Etc. Therefore your parents are mostly empty space. Do you buy this or not? **
The reason why you have difficulty buying it is that the "real world" - as you observe it to be - is so very, very different from what I am telling you. Hold those assumptions for a second. I've now agreed with you re. all the above around 4 or 5 times already - even on different threads
What you may not be grasping at this point is that that's how formidable your powers as a creator are. You have perceived into existence a "real world" .... out of empty space. *Moot point - refer to response above
Thus to the extent that you can alter your perception (and your thoughts)**
about the "real world", it will change.**
I mean, you already created it**
, as it is, out of empty space. What else couldn't
Ok, this last sentence is a little co-dependent in terms to tackle as is, so if I may deconstruct it, such... "You can alter your perception (and your thoughts)"
- Permit me to set aside thoughts for the moment, for these necessarily ensue from our perception, which will be a sufficiently complex issue with which to deal for the time being, thank you very much.
So I certainly accept one can alter their perception - ie. switch from a default favouring per subjective to objective. However attenuating down the subjective volume, will certainly not occur accidentally nor spontaneously. Moreover; I've seen little evidence that a great many contributors here so much as recognise there are two perceptions, much less understand the difference or why they are constantly creating such a serious disconnect from reality for us.
So ALG - do you? Or are we whistling in the dark here, as it might appear right now?
So for the sake of it; let's assume we recognise the difference re. perception between subjectivity (A.)
and objectivity (B.)
, and let's assume we appreciate from whence that separation comes (big assumption there), and let's assume we recognise our need for both A.
in order to relate to existence in any way, and let's assume cognition re. how we generally, unknowingly mistake A.
(phffft), and let's assume we understand our primal urge to overlay A.
yet don't so much as recognise we have A.
, and let's assume we see the inherent problem needing urgent attention (yet another major leap), and let's further assume ... ok enough with the assumptions already....
With all of the above set conveniently in situ, how would you go about designing a plan to alter (correct) the serious imbalance and dissonance in the above dynamics of such default mentality? "(perception) about the "real world", it will change"
The 'real world' will change every time (at least) every animate being within it makes choice to act. Subsequently a change in the 'real world' will necessarily be effected. So objectively a change will eventuate, however subjectively - perhaps also, yet not necessarily so. That is all according the objective reality. On the other hand - about the subjective perception of this reality.....
It would appear that you're suggestion is that one's (subjective) perception of (say) a glass of water (objective) being poison (subjective) - effectively makes it poison to the one perceiving it as such, in which instance I accept. However I'd require further explanation as to how such subjective perception can also effectuate an objective - actual - change in reality; which will have the poisonous effect upon a second party after drinking. "I mean, you already created (the real world)"
This is where things can become a little messy, so perhaps it's at this point where my struggle commences in earnest with all this. Anyways... Re the physical sense:
you say 'I created the real world', which seems obvious if you are referencing the physical changes I've physically made to the physical world immediately around me. For instance, I might pick up a pen and put it down again; necessarily in a different location. So I have (according my subjectivity) made (or changed) my objective personal reality in Sydney. However I can't see how you can translate this to the (objective) changes effectuated by your subjectivity, as being my (objectively or subjectively) changing 'the real world' over yonder, and vice-versa.
On the other hand, you may well be suggesting that my (subjective) perception creates my reality, thus ... Re. the conceptual sense:
If I conceptualised my Maserati, I'm wondering again - if there's an actual, physical car to drive as I've always understood, in which case you must be referencing my creating my physical environment in a physical sense based upon my subjective perception. That is; I physically open a physical door of a physical car and physically manoeuvre it around the streets? Yet this is about the conceptual sense, so you must be referring to my need to conceptualise myself opening a physical door etc., as promoted from my subjectivity in relation to my environment, ie. - I desired driving my Maserati, therefore conceptualised doing so, which in turn preceded the action, right?
This being the case, and my urgent need for sleep, I hereby conceptualise us at this point, as being all KOOOL.