Hello all (i.e. me :P),
I find the discussion of subjective reality extremely interesting, because it exposes a lot of the thinking that goes to justify the theory. And it becomes even more interesting when subjectivists try to highlight the abundant blessings of believing in subjectivism, but ignore its devastating consequences.
For one thing, if you wish to fully accept subjectivism (as Steve attempts to do), you will have to throw away over half of Steve's posts, because they are based on an objective-premise. Paraliminals work on the premise that the brain functions a certain way, whether you like it or not. The Law of Attraction itself is based on the idea that: this is what the world is like, so learn to accept it.
This exposes the internal contradiction subjectivism has. It cannot be explained without resorting to an objective view of reality. But, of course, a subjectivist would resort to the explanation: this is because we have become accustomed to thinking objectively, and we have to free ourselves from this indoctrination!
Although many can argue for subjective reality, and seem convinced by what they are saying, what they are resorting to (and MUST resort to) is reasoning beyond the realm of evidence. Logic, in itself, is consistency between statements. But if these statements are false, regardless of how strong the logical connection between the statements is, the reasoning is false.
For example: Betty is a pig, all pigs fly. Therefore, Betty can fly.
This is as logical as statements get. But can pigs fly? The answer is no, unless you wish to strain your brain into accepting otherwise (even then, it only becomes a figment of your imagination that they do fly). Justification of subjectivism may be logically sound, but that's because the statements are consistent with themselves, and not with reality (the benchmark being denied by the subjectivists).
If we resort to such an attitude, then we can justify any belief under the sun, and beyond!
Analyse the explanations of subjectivism, and you will realise some common traits, namely:
1) Denial of the mind and sensory experience, and reliance on meditation (i.e. coming up with ideas not connected to reality or evidence, but wishful thinking)
2) Casting doubt on language (because the meaning of subjectivism cannot be bound by words, when language is the tool we use for thinking)
3) Reliance on analogies (proof by analogy is a logical fallacy, and can be used to justify anything. e.g. a dictator is like a caring father, who does not want his children making the wrong decisions; believing in x number of Gods is like the drops of the ocean, which all merge together as one; religions are like the sides of a geometrical shape, etc, etc)
4) Offering a subjective explanation to experiences that can easily be explained objectively (if you want to be successful and happen to become successful, it's not your wishful thinking but the actions you took and attitude you had which led to your success).
There are several other traits that emerge depending on the strand of subjectivism being followed.
I apologise if I sound too harsh, but I see subjectivism as being an essentially destructive philosophy, which tends to get me worked up.
If any subjectivist *is* offended by what I said, don't blame me, blame yourself! :P
|