Garbage, all of it.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm sorry, John, I don't see cylon being petulant or evasive or snide, particularly not his post I think you were referring to, the one with the music link. I see light-hearted playfulness and kind of a joke, not even a rib-nudging one, just sweet. I think there is room for that in rational discussion. It's not so much off-topic as just cryptic to someone who is holding tightly to his perspective.

No, you probably missed them. It's ok. It was earlier, and everybody's moved on except me, of course: people like me hold tightly to our perspectives. We're over-rationalzing, should lighten up (but take it all a bit more seriously at the same time - that's poetry for you) and just enjoy life instead of worrying about what's true. Cylon is sweet, you're sharp and I would put you all in straight-jackets given half a chance.

Other than guiding folks to follow Steve's posted rules, I can't and don't want to control how people express themselves. That would only limit me.

Of course. Well, no, it would limit them, but I see what you mean, I think.

So, what do you mean by telling me "~~><::> ><;;>"? I'm not sure I understand, unless you're expressing petulance or snideness. Is there something else in there?

I typed that in a reply to cylon. I was working at lightening up, being cryptic and poetic. It wasn't to you. I saw it somewhere else earlier and thought it was interesting. I don't know whether it's a common thing - like a known cypher - but it could be. It looks like it could mean "Evolution", especially in the original where the second figure is underlined. It goes: fish with ripples after it, so swimming, to fishy-type thing on a flat surface, but now the rib colons are semicolons, representing the fins growing into legs. I imagine that's what it meant. The other thing it looks like is: fish, swimming again - fish caught and on a plate. Sgood innit? I like them things. I'll ask if I find it again.

I don't know why I said it to cylon, but it would be possible to construct meanings from either version that would be fitting. He may not know why he said , but apparently that was addressed to you. D'oh, we're all at xd porpoises.

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I would put you all in straight-jackets given half a chance.

.

We see this a lot from you.

I think it is the root of why it bothers you.

You are afraid to buy into anything for fear of buying into the "wrong" belief. In your world that would make you "insane?"

I don't know. Just a thought.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

We're over-rationalzing, should lighten up (but take it all a bit more seriously at the same time - that's poetry for you) and just enjoy life instead of worrying about what's true.

.

Well, I think I specifically said there were no *shoulds* about it -- I don't think you or I or Cylon or anyone else *should* do or be anything other than what we're doing or being. I was just saying that there's room for whatever it was Cylon was doing or being, even though you might prefer something else, like serious, rational discussion.

Of course. Well, no, it would limit them, but I see what you mean, I think.

I don't think so. My authority only extends to enforcing the rules of the forum; I have (and want!) no power over how people express themselves. But maybe you are just being playful here.

I like the evolution cypher. When I looked again, it looked like an arrow hunting for two little creatures hiding in a cave, and then the two little creatures vomit.

xd porpoises

I got mixed up with who was saying what to whom. Sorry about that!

[cylon]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

No, you probably missed them. It's ok. It was earlier, and everybody's moved on except me, of course: people like me hold tightly to our perspectives. We're over-rationalzing, should lighten up (but take it all a bit more seriously at the same time - that's poetry for you) and just enjoy life instead of worrying about what's true. Cylon is sweet, you're sharp and I would put you all in straight-jackets given half a chance.

I'm not as complicated as you're making me out to be. I'm actually not sure why the few posts I've made are setting you off so much. You've said plenty of personal stuff about me and I could have responded in anger, but I didn't. But you don't see that obviously.

Yet here you are trying to get me banned? Kicked out of the thread? Why?

This forum is about intention manifestation, synkros. Your little insult about sparkly dolphins started a really fun and enjoyable deal with moonrambler and we're demonstrating, in real time, from our perspective, the subject of this section of the forum!


Manifesting intentions, law of attraction, vibrational harmony, synchronicities, luck, share your intentions, practice group manifesting

Am I not discussing these topics?

And could you please find me the part in the OP of this thread that says "please, have a rational, detached discussion about this subject"? The OP was a RANT! This thread has evolved on its own. There are no rules here. You are defining the thread for what you want it to be. I suppose I'm doing the same.


Angela had referenced earlier your intention to have people here who are interested in IM but would like to just have a cold detached discussion about it (my words). That isn't me. I have real passion for this subject. I can't have a stuffy removed relationship with it. If you don't like it find the "cold, removed, detached, theoretical discussion forum about things that to some people inspire true passion and joy and they can't help but just have fun with it.com"

[Jonathan Browne]

You know, i'm going to throw my one and only barb into this conversation. You ALL should think about stopping the banter about each others tone.


It starts with name calling then somebody gets mad and throws punches

And John Freestone.... don't you think it's a little bit "passive agressive" to accuse most of the posters in this forum of being mentally insane?

I'd hate to see a world run completely by hardcore skeptics. People with crazy concepts such as faith, hope and love would eventually all be tossed in a mental institute where they'd be locked in a white room and taunted by skepticly trained attendents who would say scornfully "attract your way out of this!"

I'd imagine someone like Steve is laughing all the way to the bank while you accuse him of being mentally insane. BTW, he sure is disciplined for such a woo woo, illogical guy.

but who knows my friend, the law of attraction is powerful. Maybe you can attract a way to make a huge passive income from your skeptic activities. After all you have faith and belief that your right, it shouldn't be hard too attract some dough James Randi style.

What's funny is truly skeptical skeptics don't really get much recognition or interest. If your a true skeptic you'll be very skeptical of your own skepticism.

Of course, your subconcious already seem to be, considering it's throwing fastballs at you involving your father talking to you from the spirit world, but you have a strong belief that your right so your gonna have a tough time convincing yourself that you are wrong. Even if you post on this forum incessantly for many years.

I'll tell you what though, I do think we should lock up those scientist talking about that whole string theory and multiverse thing. Those ideas are dangerously insane and I don't think they can prove it to me unless they can actually transport me to another universe.

I'm not buying that whole black hole thing either. Let me get this straight, they are going to make particles play chicken and when they hit it's going to create a hole in the fabric of space time? Sounds like some BS from startrek.

Lock those CERN guys up and throw away the key please???

[John Freestone]

Ah, that's interesting, Jonathan. I educate people here about the theory that believing whatever you want to believe, etc., is a recognised syndrome and only ever use the idea that you're all insane with irony (I did omit a smiley last time, but I thought the context was clear) and in the course of telling me off for that and painting me as some kind of fascist, you let slip (presumably quite seriously?) that you actually would lock people up for their scientific activities or 'dangerous insanity'. It is a topsy turvey world here at the Smart People forum, isn't it? Now how long will you continue to misinterpret humour and psychological theory for personal attack by a fascist before you demonstrate that you're a complete freaking nutjob?

BTW, it would help me understand your communication better if you differentiated between "your" and "you're". (Let's see now, I wonder, will you take that as grammar fascism?)

Edit: and you know, if this seems like a rather harsh response, maybe you shouldn't tell everyone to think about their banter concerning their tone towards each other and in the next breath accuse me of being passive aggressive.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

I'm not as complicated as you're making me out to be. I'm actually not sure why the few posts I've made are setting you off so much. You've said plenty of personal stuff about me and I could have responded in anger, but I didn't. But you don't see that obviously.

No. I think I do to some extent. But I am shocked by the strength of my reaction to you. I have misunderstood some stuff from you, and I am sorry. Without intending to add any more criticism, I want to explain that I was genuine in what I said before about feeling that you were dodging the issues of the discussion. I do not want to make a complete list, but there have been several where, in the middle of a rational exchange about some aspect of LoA, I felt I had asked you to explain something (probably not that politely). For example, there was the time when you said that synchronicity was a coincidence that shocked you so much that you thought silly thoughts about it. I countered that surely that seemed a rather LoA-negative position, or that it was what I was saying - surely it is better to recognise an amazing coincidence for what it is and not reclassify it as something else and think silly thoughts about it. Another example is that you said something about LoA being magical, but not magical really, just seeming magical. It seemed that you kept engaging with the subject in a reasoning manner, and we made progress discussing it, then we'd hit one of these points and you seemed to just give trite answers or actually not answer the question at all. You responded to that first point (the silly thoughts one) I think with "I'll take that as a 'no'" and went on to post more coincidences. You also engaged in just talking to other people about me as if I wasn't there. I also felt that your reporting all the sparkly dolphins you'd come across was not without some sort of negative intention. I realise I may be being over-sensitive on these things, and certainly I have misunderstood at least one (you never wanted me to take anything more seriously, I see now).

I just want you to understand that, from my perspective, this felt infuriating. Sure, maybe I'm stuffy to you, and you wanted me to lighten up. (I have literally only now realised that your statement "Hey John, do you think you could take things a little more seriously please?" was ironic, even though you said you were being ironic later - I didn't know what you meant you were being ironic about at that point. Then you said you wanted me to lighten up, so I concluded that I couldn't really trust anything you said very much (I'll take that as a reminder that smileys are important if we want to avoid those misunderstandings). Putting these perceptions together, you gave me the impression that you were just playing the fool to annoy me. It is noticable that I have virtually no idea what sense you personally make of IM/LoA or SR after supposedly discussing it with you for weeks. Why? Well, it seems to me simply because you aren't that kind of person who makes sense of things. You aren't interested in whether it makes sense to think goofy thoughts about coincidences, or pin even yourself down as to whether there is or is not magic in the world. That is the only conclusion I can come to.

As we both agree, we can't make the other have a particular mode of participation, we're just different, but I can't quite get my head round Angela telling me that you are engaging. I feel that I have made quite a few jokes and flippant remarks, not been completely analytical all the time. I have also exposed a great deal about myself, my thoughts and difficulties with all of this, but I suppose I can't say that I have engaged in a trivial or lighthearted way, as perhaps you want me to. I can only say that I feel you might recognise the intention behind the OP, as the sharing of a serious concern, and notice that I and others are discussing those serious concerns, and have the common decency either to take part reasonably seriously or but out and play silly ****ers somewhere else.

Yet here you are trying to get me banned? Kicked out of the thread? Why?

What?! I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. I have not tried to get you banned or kicked out of the thread. I tried to give you some of your own medicine lately by talking to others about you. Perhaps you'd like to explain how you take that that way. You see, once again, your response is quite baffling to me: this seems like it might be paranoia, or it might be you playing up the role of victim. I don't know how to make better sense of it, since the idea of trying to get you banned never entered my head.

This forum is about intention manifestation, synkros. Your little insult about sparkly dolphins started a really fun and enjoyable deal with moonrambler and we're demonstrating, in real time, from our perspective, the subject of this section of the forum!

Yes. I accept that is a fair point, and if that is honestly what you were doing, then I can only say that I misinterpreted it as (sometimes, a somewhat) deliberate attempt to sideline a philosophical discussion. Someone raised a hell of a serious accusation - it is all Garbage! - and there is no reason you have to share your 'synkros' in this thread, when you have a whole section for it. Where else would someone hold a serious discussion about IM other than in the IM thread? Like I say, you have the right to share them anywhere, I just felt that you must be deliberately sabotaging criticism. To be completely honest, it will take some hard work to convince me otherwise: it would be a very natural reaction to criticism of our belief system to discuss where we feel we can, play the fool where we seem to have our backs against the wall.

<snip> That isn't me. I have real passion for this subject. I can't have a stuffy removed relationship with it. If you don't like it find the "cold, removed, detached, theoretical discussion forum about things that to some people inspire true passion and joy and they can't help but just have fun with it.com"

Ok. If you HAVE to share your passion on EVERY thread, including the ones probably most people would recognise as trying to address the philosophy behind IM - if your ego won't let others play a different game, a little more intellectual than yours - I'll go. To me, there is no need to feel uncomfortable or negative about 'detached, theoretical discussion'. I have been trying to inspire you with a new passion, if only you could see it, not trying to take anything away (except illusions, and I have ALWAYS been clear - repeated ad nauseam - that I am discussing, not making pronouncements of truth).

Anyway, I hope that helps you understand a bit more about why I've been so tetchy with you, and that it's not just because I'm a stuffed shirt who wants to lock people up who have any alternative beliefs. Have a happy life.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, I think I specifically said there were no *shoulds* about it -- I don't think you or I or Cylon or anyone else *should* do or be anything other than what we're doing or being. I was just saying that there's room for whatever it was Cylon was doing or being, even though you might prefer something else, like serious, rational discussion.

Sure, I get that, Angela. You can raise the perspective with 'shoulds' too - there is no rule that says you as moderator should allow all modes of participation everywhere. With hindsight I feel that the thread might have been more productive had it been recognised as trying to address IM in a serious manner, because of the seriousness of the "RANT!" (as cylon called it) of the OP. You might have (please, again, notice I'm not saying any shoulds here) then put a word to people attempting to demonstrate how synchronous their lives are to stay on topic. Staying on topic, or using a certain mode of communication, may not be in the guidelines. You may not want to bother with them. I may be completely wrong to suggest it. It might make conversations worse not better. I just feel there's a place for things like that. Maybe my intentions belonged in another section of the forums altogether, and you as mod might have put a word to me. Many places these actions are quite common - moving someone's thread, asking people to stay on topic, etc.

I don't think so. My authority only extends to enforcing the rules of the forum; I have (and want!) no power over how people express themselves. But maybe you are just being playful here.

Moi, playful? Actually, no, I wasn't. I was confused how 'enforcing the rules' as you put it, would limit you. I can only think it means that you would have to be limited in enforcing them as opposed to not bothering to. It popped into my head that enforcing rules is about limiting others. I could see it almost as an extension of self, rather than a limitation - I have to do stuff (and I have had some experience of running a forum) to help people interact more harmoniously.

Oh dear, I don't want this to imply that you in any way failed in your duty! I don't think people understand me very well, particularly on this point - I enjoy analysing things and discussing them with others so much that I say things and people think I'm making some point, accusing them or praising them or being arrogant or something, when I am just pushing ideas around, playing (to those who enjoy the same game, it really is play). [Edit: that's not quite right - it's part of the reality, but I'm also an argumentative bastard] You're a welcoming and smoothing kind of presence here, Angela, and courageous too. So the above was a thought. How you moderate is not my business.

I like the evolution cypher. When I looked again, it looked like an arrow hunting for two little creatures hiding in a cave, and then the two little creatures vomit.

:-

I got mixed up with who was saying what to whom. Sorry about that!

No problem. I think you, cylon and I all did the same thing then. There's a coincidence.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

[cylon]

Alright John let's just drop it for now. Something about my communication style just doesn't sit well with you, and vice versa. That's just how it is, I guess. That's fine. Not everyone has to agree and get along with each other.

[Jonathan Browne]

Old dear boy John Freestone is just being a bit defensive as far as I can see.


BTW: I was incredelously comparing the idea of people being insane for believing and having faith in something currently unprovable to thinking we should lock up the guys at CERN or people theorizing about the multiverse.


That's it. I was making a point about the discussion at hand. I'm not really commenting on your tone either.

I'm just saying that you are obviously attacking the credibility of multiple people in these forums while trying to make it seem like you aren't, which I think could be regarded as passive agressive. I don't actually take much stock in the label of passive agressive but since you seem willing to throw labels on people that easily im playing your game to try to make you see what im talking about.

I have no animosity to you whatsoever and I could easily be close friends with someone who had your beliefs, as long as he didn't mind defending his position without resorting to foolish attacking tactics. I've encountered what I consider intellectual bullies before.

People that don't really spend a lot of time argueing for their position and against yours. They spend more time attacking your credibility and pointing out that your a fool for considering the possibility or idea they consider to be unreasonable or illogical.

Who made you the ultimate judge and authority of logic and truth? This is a similiar type of mindset that hardcore christians or "jesus freaks" have, when they post things like "I'll be praying to Jesus to save your soul." on blogs or forums, to people they consider to be "wordly", atheist, exisentialist etc.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

Alright John let's just drop it for now. Something about my communication style just doesn't sit well with you, and vice versa. That's just how it is, I guess. That's fine. Not everyone has to agree and get along with each other.

I agree, cylon. I now seem to have a loose end with JB, but I think you and I have dealt with this as far as we're able - quite well, I think, considering the gap between our styles. Thanks, and sorry. I wish you all the best.

[John Freestone]

JB, I'm sorry for upsetting you and attacking your world view, as you see it. I wonder if we can both recognise how similar our faults are. We seem to be guilty of the same things:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Browne

Old dear boy John Freestone is just being a bit defensive as far as I can see.

Yes, I'm feeling defensive. It happens when I'm misunderstood and attacked.

BTW: I was incredelously comparing the idea of people being insane for believing and having faith in something currently unprovable to thinking we should lock up the guys at CERN or people theorizing about the multiverse.

Then my failure to be clear about irony by including the relevant smileys seems ridiculous, and I wouldn't be able to hold a conversation with you any further. There is nothing I can see in what you said that gave away the ironic nature of your desire to lock up CERN scientists. It would have been useful, if indeed this response is genuine, to have said origninally something like "What you're saying is no different to if I said...CERN...". It would distinguish it from the sense "We're not mad for believing unproved things, it's those nutters at CERN". Either that, or add a wink smiley to your fascist statements.

That's it. I was making a point about the discussion at hand. I'm not really commenting on your tone either.

Then I am quite simply as mad as a sausage. I should stop reading anything anyone writes, because I misinterpret it so badly.

I'm just saying that you are obviously attacking the credibility of multiple people in these forums while trying to make it seem like you aren't, which I think could be regarded as passive agressive.

Hard to see that as not really commenting on my tone.

I don't actually take much stock in the label of passive agressive but since you seem willing to throw labels on people that easily im playing your game to try to make you see what im talking about.

Oh. So we're both passive aggressive from time to time. What shall we do, trace it back and work out who started it? The point is to stop being passively aggressive, I think, and state clearly what is going on for us, so that we can be honest and work towards understanding...or not if we prefer.

I have no animosity to you whatsoever

I doubt that very much.

and I could easily be close friends with someone who had your beliefs, as long as he didn't mind defending his position without resorting to foolish attacking tactics. I've encountered what I consider intellectual bullies before.

You see how it's just both of us, though? These are criticisms that we could both level at each other. When two people are angry and arguing with each other and feeling defensive and feeling that they're being unjustly attacked. If you insinuate that I am an intellectual bully, that is intellectual bullying. I have been guilty at times of 'foolish attacking tactics' perhaps, but behind them was a frustration that 'defending my position' was being railroaded by unfair and defensive tactics. Now, if you admit to playing my game above to get your point across, making statements about scientists that you didn't mean and not making that clear, I can only see that as doing the same thing. You're frustrated that sensible points aren't getting through to me, so you resort to acting out. Like I say, we are doing what people do when the argue. Let's not just keep doing it and not notice, eh?

People that don't really spend a lot of time argueing for their position and against yours. They spend more time attacking your credibility and pointing out that your a fool for considering the possibility or idea they consider to be unreasonable or illogical.

It is a difficult line to tread. I have tried to argue philosophically about the LoA, etc. without attacking people for believing in it, but the reason I criticise it is because it is unreasonable and illogical (imho) and that just naturally leads to the fact that people who believe in it will feel that they are being personally attacked. That's one side of it. Another, I have to admit to, is that I haven't just been all squeaky clean and lovely: I have in particular been quite snide and viscious about Steve Pavlina (with whom I have never had any kind of dealing to my knowledge - alhtough he could be on this forum by another name for all I know - Angela, is that you). I kind of don't know what to do with that except admit it and say I am sorry if I have personally offended someone, but Jeez, it's not like I'm spraying bullets round a freaking classroom - people get the piss taken out of them millions of times a day - and here it is quite acceptable, it seems, to do that about Christians for their unreasonable and illogical beliefs.

Imagine that you actually felt really concerned that the scientific world was taking us all in a dangerous direction making particles play chicken (if you have to imagine - I don't actually believe that was ironic at all) - and you started to feel you should do something about it - so you started posting questions and critical comments about science at some science forum. I guarantee it would be only a moment before those people felt attacked personally, called stupid and irresponsible, crazy, dangerous, and responded defensively, and you'd be in my position. But - and this is the crucial question no-one is addressing - is it acceptable to criticise those who have different beliefs? Would you have the right - even the responsibility - to raise your concerns? Would you actually be patronising (cause they'll ask why you think you have to save everyone, why you think you have some special insight, and why you're bullying them)? You would have to be quite masterful in your language use to avoid it.

Who made you the ultimate judge and authority of logic and truth? This is a similiar type of mindset that hardcore christians or "jesus freaks" have, when they post things like "I'll be praying to Jesus to save your soul." on blogs or forums, to people they consider to be "wordly", atheist, exisentialist etc.

QED. Quite laughable, considering what I have said to try to demonstrate that I am ready to listen, present my ideas sensibly, maintain as much humility and perspective as possible, and even apologise when I have lost my rag. With serious irony, I can only say that I sincerely hope you give up your belief in magic and return to the real world, but I can't say that at all without it being perceived as a personal bullying attack, no doubt. Still, for your own sake, and everybody else's, I hope you all do. You see, to me, LoA and other magical beliefs are not so dissimilar to particle-chicken. I perceive humanity approaching quite a critical point of evolution, where it will be crucial to our survival (and generally a 'happy ending') for us to avoid superstitions (if we have them) and deal with extremely serious, real, physical and social problems.

That's kind of where I came in, sharing my concern that sitting round imagining money and calling it spiritual enlightenment, or believing in things that 'haven't yet been proven' (and for which there is a lot of evidence demonstrating that they are almost certainly FALSE) isn't going to help us love each other, share wealth, stop bombing each other and avoid global warming. It seems, however, almost impossible to wake people up enough to discuss this sensibly (with a few exceptions, whom I am sorry to leave, and sorry to have been distracted from relating to on this - hope to meet you again somewhere else), assuming my fears are even founded. You're not helping to allay them one jot. If sincere discussion can't be differentiated from arrogant bullying, we might as well give up now, just 'polish the Titanic' and count dolphins until someone puts us out of our 'happiness'.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

...Steve Pavlina (with whom I have never had any kind of dealing to my knowledge - alhtough he could be on this forum by another name for all I know - Angela, is that you).

Well, you've never seen us in the same room together, now, have you?

[Jonathan Browne]

I can't speak for anyone else, but i'm not personally offended by anything you say. I've never been one to give a D if people think im a fool. People are going to think that even if your an incredible genius. There will always be that one person who will say you should stop thinking about pie in the sky solutions to things like providing health care to all americans, trying to explore space, etc. and we should all be spending our time thinking of real world solutions to more practical problems.

What i'm proposing though, is that the only way to solve the social and environmental problems we are currently facing in this world as human beings is to create radical solutions using innovative thinking. The same type of thinking that has lead many people to believe in LOA.

For me the LOA is not any sort of religious belief. I know that it's effective. Wether or not it works through "the universe" reshaping itself according to your thoughts, or your subconcious helping you make the right "inspired actions" and see things through to the end, doesn't really matter to me. All I know is that it works. Hypnosis was considered quackery at first, but its extremely effective.

Where do you think these kinds of problems you speak of come from anyway? It all stems from peoples mindstates. I'm sure that much you can see. People litter because they don't feel that it makes a difference to the larger world if they are careful about their effect on the environment. People like George Bush continue to anger and incite crazy behavior from the muslim world because they feel they must resist againt terrorism instead of simply defending the country from it. This behavior of course only dramatically increases the amount of terrorists in the world. How about the inner city crime problem, much of which stems from the illegality of drugs causing the profits from selling them to be high enough where people become ruthless hustlers of drugs, building highly profitable gangs.

Now you take the next step logically and see where it leads you.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I'm struggling with this:So that sounds like you aren't such a 'true believer', you don't believe we can just sit around, think about money and it will come to us...but

Why wouldn't that include sitting around thinking about money and making it come to us (assuming you believe it); why would the belief that I can manifest money not summon the evidence to prove it? What you seem to have done is present (in the first quote) a view that manifestation of intention works by affecting behaviour - then (in the second quote) a view of Magical LoA: belief creates reality. Is it one or the other, both, or have I misunderstood?

I think you are turning the statement "what you believe, you summon the evidence" and reversing it to say "all evidence proves any belief true". People believe some pretty whacked out things are true and have created the supporting rationale to believe it. That doesn't mean their belief is true. What interests me is how their belief affects their subjective reality.

Intention affects one's state of mind as well as one's physical being including behavior. This is a holistic interpretation. So in the example of someone who believes they can manifest money just by thinking about it, their thinking about money will orient their being towards money. They will think, act and acquire the means to getting money, whether those means are linear (rational) or not. It's that last point I think you and I differ. The acquisition of money does not have to follow a rational, scientifically proven method.

I take it a step further and say that what you believe affects external phenomena. I can't prove it. I've just had some uncanny experiences that point to that idea. One way to look it is that all of time and space are happening simultaneously in the Now. In other words, it is a matter of where I put my attention as to where in the Now I am. For example, in one instance of time I am a millionaire. By putting my attention on being a millionaire, I align myself with that reality.

That's quite an astute observation, and I think it may be approximately right. But that is taking thinking out of life where it can happily go round in circles without bumping into anything. The point I have been trying to make is that science is the process of testing those assertions - where they bump up against reality and get repeatedly chucked out.

Person A believes that they will be poor their whole life no matter what they do. Person B believes that they will be rich their whole life no matter what they do. Let's say they live in identical conditions with identical backgrounds (which is impossible, a small flaw in this process). Person A will have opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty, but will not see them due to their belief. Person B will have the same opportunities and will see them due to their belief. The reality they are bumping up against is neutral ("empty"). They see what they want to see.

I would add that seeing the world as neutral is a prerequisite choosing what beliefs to believe.

While I take your point that santa claus can be believed in metaphorically, the fact that you (presumably) don't believe in him physically is a good example. Children do science when they stay awake to catch their parents putting presents under the tree, and only foolish, dim or badly misguided ones still believe the big fat man in red and white comes down the chimney at xmas by the time they're at uni.

Many adults spend the holidays stressed out and depressed, while children who believe in the big guy enjoy all aspects of the season with carefree happiness. So what if their belief is irrational? There is a saying, "I'd rather be happy than right."

I think you are being a bit of an intellectual fascist. What if a person is a bit of a dolt, has some irrational superstitions, yet despite all that is content and lives a productive existence according to them?

Most of that is very astute too - few thinkers get as far as recognising that reason and logic may be doubted just as everything else may be. But I think you make a bit of a mistake when that leads you to...I'll have to put this better - I mean, yes, philosophically speaking, maybe all theories about life are equally doubt-able, none absolutely certain, and even reason may be a foul knave, but the question is how are we going to choose our beliefs. You could as easily imply that we should just choose them at random, or choose whatever beliefs make us happy, ignoring all testing and thinking because testing and thinking are not 100% rock solid. Sure, you're aware of the danger of becoming obsessively rationalistic and never settling anywhere (although I personally feel that is quite a good way to be if one can take the strain - didn't someone once say belief is the worst enemy of knowledge?) - but choosing to believe that whatever you believe will be (or tend to create) reality seems a rather unecessary flight in the opposite direction.

There's another skeptic on here that shows up now and then named Stephen who put up a post that life is meaningless. That is, it has no inherent meaning. I agree with him on this idea. Life only has the meaning we give it. I don't see how logic provides me with an answer to the meaning of life, do you?

The meaning or central belief in life is relative to who you are or who you think you are and what you want. It's subjective.

One criteria I use in terms of belief is the removal of absolute statements (must, should, need). That comes from Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy. I think this is the line between believer and true believer; when belief becomes absolute.

That's right, I'm concerned because I see it as very unlikely to be true, being popularized as the truth by certain folk, and I see some people "taking what they are given in terms of belief" - from people like Steve.

There's a forum dedicated to anything Steve has written on his blog and there are many people who question what he writes. Like the polarity issue (lightworker vs. darkworker) or his views on religion. There's also a forum on psychic powers where people regularly question paranormal phenomena. And you would find many people who agree with you about religion and belief over in the spirituality section. I've met many more people on this board who have similar thinking to you (science/rationalism) than I have met otherwise. You might want to investigate a little deeper before coming to the conclusion that this is a cult of Steve or something.

Again, that is only if someone becomes obessed with not sitting with a favorite theory and saying "That'll do for a while" or "That's my best guess at the moment". That isn't necessarily the definition of a sceptic, just an obsessive one. I think you can be sceptic to different degrees, at one end never trusting any assumption, believing nothing, at the other being almost fixed, but just keeping a little bit of an open mind. Another interesting observation from that is that if you do what cylon's linked page said "Don't doubt", you are quite clearly closed minded; that little chink of healthy scepticism has sealed shut (for now, it could open again). That's another insidious thing about the LoA. Like a lot of religions, it tells you it is the truth and the more you stop trying to worry about whether it might or might not be the truth and just accept it as the truth, the more it will become the truth. In that sense, sure, you get what you believe.

It seems to me that you are assuming that anyone who believes in LOA is not a skeptic at all and incapable of critical thought. As you said, people can be skeptics to various degrees. What I think about does lead to certain experiences, doesn't it?

One problem I have with some skeptics is they take a sales pitch as the logical background for what is being asserted. A sales pitch appeals to emotion because people buy on emotion. There is a tendency among skeptics to set up the straw man argument which doesn't prove or disprove anything.

LoAers often seem deeply critical of religion, especially christianity, and I'm afraid I can't help but see enormous similarities. The details are mostly quite different, although even some of them are the same. Become like little children. Blessed is the one who believes and does not know. Just stop thinking critically; read the texts. Having a crisis of faith? - pray harder. We'll all pray for you. Signs and portents. It's magic, but it only seems like magic. Its the secret hidden reality behind normal (illusory) reality; come, join the special ones who seeeee.

IMO, LOA is about how you believe and it's relationship to reality and not what you should or should not believe. I'm going to leave the comment about this being a religion alone. I've been writing this post forever and I have other things to do.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by alegro

I have covered this point in one of my first posts on this board. Since it has been brought up before I thought it is worthwhile addressing it.

I basically got very little feedback to it - except that a factual error was pointed out for which I am very grateful. But nobody has yet explained to me how the concept of subjective reality is compatible with our experience of the world.

How would someone who believes the Earth is flat experience a trip round the globe? How come that Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity (or other bizarre things about Nature) were manifested if nobody believed in them even after the first experiments came out?

I've answered some of these questions many times myself. That's the nature of forums, eh?

How you or I experience the world is subjective reality. Objective reality on the other hand has little to no compatibility with the way we experience the world. If there were such a thing as objective reality it would be absolutely true in comparison to anyone's subjective version of it, which is a logical fallacy according to rationalism itself. That means that even the most tight, hardcore rationalist is a subjective fool like the rest of us.

I would say that many skeptics are trying to escape reality as much as the true believers they critique. They want a world where everything is comprehensible by their senses and quantifiable by reason, where any anomalies and irrational thought processes and behaviorisms are eliminated. Such a world does not exist. As Nietzsche might say, we are all too human.

In answer to your first question, I would like to ask you a question. What if you took a trip around the world and discovered it was a saucer riding on the back of a giant turtle? Would you continue to believe the earth is round?

My guess is that you would assume you had been fooled or perhaps drugged. All your life you believed one thing and here is contradictory evidence. If you knew for certain that this wasn't a trick and you were quite sober, you may re-evaluate your belief that the world is round in light of your experience. I'm guessing that this is how a person who believes the world is flat would react as well.

Regarding the second question, the 'weird science' discovered through the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics come from the stated assertions of each theory respectively. For example, in Newtonian physics, there is no such thing as a 'quark' and gravity is a force not a field as it is in Einstein's universe. The changes in assertions are based on new evidence, but the assertions are specific interpretations of that evidence. Those interpretations brings light to new observations about the nature of reality. It also 'black's out' other observations. For example, scientists assume that the universe is not a conscious entity, so they black out any rationale that might lead to that conclusion.

[alegro]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

How you or I experience the world is subjective reality. Objective reality on the other hand has little to no compatibility with the way we experience the world.

To deal with the abstraction, let's take an example: I drop a cup, it falls down and breaks. I would consider the fact that the cup fell down and broke "objective reality".

The experience of this event will certainly be subjective; some people would say "Oh no, now the cup is broken and I have to clean everything up", others "Never mind, it was ugly, anyway", still others "It wasn't mine! Ha!".

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

If there were such a thing as objective reality it would be absolutely true in comparison to anyone's subjective version of it, which is a logical fallacy according to rationalism itself.

We certainly have subjective interpretations of an event. The event itself, however, occurred in everybody's reality. In the example above, how can anybody deny that the cup fell down and broke?

The only way out would be that the cup didn't break for some people and those people could continue to fill it and drink from it. Other people could not. Maybe there are people for whom this latter version of reality is true. But they probably could not interact with me since I couldn't exist in their reality and they couldn't exist in mine. So everybody I can interact with - including people on this board - have to agree that the cup broke.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

In answer to your first question, I would like to ask you a question. What if you took a trip around the world and discovered it was a saucer riding on the back of a giant turtle? Would you continue to believe the earth is round?

I guess I would first deny the evidence. Then maybe my sanity. Then get very upset. Probably, in the end I would accept it.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

If you knew for certain that this wasn't a trick and you were quite sober, you may re-evaluate your belief that the world is round in light of your experience. I'm guessing that this is how a person who believes the world is flat would react as well.

How is that compatible with what you wrote above about "objective reality"? If the world is flat for everybody, it would constitute something that couldn't exist if "subjective reality" was true.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Regarding the second question, the 'weird science' discovered through the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics come from the stated assertions of each theory respectively. For example, in Newtonian physics, there is no such thing as a 'quark' and gravity is a force not a field as it is in Einstein's universe. The changes in assertions are based on new evidence, but the assertions are specific interpretations of that evidence.

But is the evidence not "objective"?

[Angela]

Alegro, Mercuryrising said "How you or I experience the world is subjective reality." Aside from the level of dropped or broken cups (what you call physical reality), you and I actually create our reality of it subjectively. You have infinite power to create your world --

-- the broken cup is a tragedy (you are creating a tragic reality)
-- I hated that cup, and am so glad it's finally gone without my having to throw it away -- that would piss off my mother-in-law who gave it to me as a wedding present) (you are creating relief)
-- oh, god, maybe I have some neurological disease! Dropsy!? (reality = fear and pain)
-- I am five years old and wheeee! how fun to see that cup go kerploosh! (fun, learning)
-- etc. etc.

There is nothing objective about that cup falling and breaking, except perhaps that it has fallen and broken (and even that part is arguable ).

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by alegro

To deal with the abstraction, let's take an example: I drop a cup, it falls down and breaks. I would consider the fact that the cup fell down and broke "objective reality".

You've heard the Zen koan, "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?"

Well, if there is no subject to define the object "cup" in the event of falling and breaking, then it is irrelevant to reality as you or I know it. Without the perceiver involved, the cup could have not fallen and broken or there was never a cup in the first place or there is and is not a cup falling simultaneously. We don't know.

We certainly have subjective interpretations of an event. The event itself, however, occurred in everybody's reality. In the example above, how can anybody deny that the cup fell down and broke?

If you were to ask a dog or a machine if the cup fell, it could neither confirm or deny the event. That may sound like a smart allec answer. My point is that a cup only exists in a subjective universe. From a purely objective universe, you would have a bunch of atoms flying around running into each other. The universe only has some sort of meaning relative to a limited perception by a conscious being.

The only way out would be that the cup didn't break for some people and those people could continue to fill it and drink from it. Other people could not. Maybe there are people for whom this latter version of reality is true. But they probably could not interact with me since I couldn't exist in their reality and they couldn't exist in mine. So everybody I can interact with - including people on this board - have to agree that the cup broke.

They have to because you say so? You can't interact with people who perceive the world differently than you? How are we having this conversation then?

How is that compatible with what you wrote above about "objective reality"? If the world is flat for everybody, it would constitute something that couldn't exist if "subjective reality" was true.

Just as the world is not round for everyone (given the flat earth society), the world could not be flat for everyone. I used that as an example, not as a principle. What you are calling an objective universe is more a collectively subjective one. It's what you and I can agree is real. Given a different set of conditions, the conclusion changes.

Like this forum. You and I accept that this forum is real, giving us the ability to communicate through it. If we were in a different position in time/space, say 1880 in India, this forum no longer is real. To my 6 year old daughter, this forum is meaningless. It doesn't enter her subjective reality. It isn't real to her. The Webkinz website, however, is quite real to her.

You might check out the book Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson. A lot of what we are talking about here goes back to insights I gleaned from that book.

But is the evidence not "objective"?

Does it have any meaning without a hypothesis formulated to it?

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Angela

There is nothing objective about that cup falling and breaking, except perhaps that it has fallen and broken (and even that part is arguable ).

I thought I was going to get the prize for ending this damn thread.

[Angela]

Maybe you just did .... d'oh! Sorry, Chip, after you!

Love,
Dale

[Nicketas]

While I wouldn't advise being as "harsh" as dave....

Instead of asking "Why is the universe not bending to my will?"

A better question is this: Why would you need it to?

If you take exceptional care of yourself, and then take the correct actions, and stick to them, you will attain whatever goals you want over time.

Yes, It is true that positive thoughts and emotions help "attract" opportunities in the general sense.... but they only do so because other positive people want to be around you because they feel your fun, good emotion.

Without other people, things like romantic love, money, material goods, vacations, toys, etc. don't really exist.

If you are a positive, strong person and you build high character, and then present an opportunity for other similar people to benefit from, you'll be well on your way to reaching any goal you have.

Fortunately, there is a field of study designed to learn how to master yourself and master your dealings with other people in order to reach life goals with precision.

It's called Psychology. And that information is readily available for far, far less than what you would pay for any number of "LOA" seminars.

It also just so happens that psychology has enough research behind it to work every time.

Though any legitimate psychology book is worth reading, The best and most consistently reliable psychology manual i've ever read anywhere is MindOS. It's an easy read.

I have noticed in my own life that emotions and thought affect my results.

There's just no question.

However, when I've tried both the LOA, then MindOS.... there's simply no comparison.

And I would tell you that whether I had a link in my signature, or not. Believe me or don't, I really care not an iota in this context.

That's why I went through the enormous trouble to coach psychology, not attraction.

As for how beliefs come into play....

They simply affect your predominate amount of positive or negative emotion, as well as your perception of your results.

You can resolve limiting beliefs in about ten days with local, inexpensive EMDR Therapy

And as for objective reality vs. subjective reality.

Both are correct.

Huh?

Objective reality exists. We interpret that reality subjectively. Try this. Go with it. Get what you want.

Or sit around thinking about it and wondering why nothing is happening.

You are not the center of the universe, and the best part is, you don't need to be in order to get what you want.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

Alegro, Mercuryrising said "How you or I experience the world is subjective reality." Aside from the level of dropped or broken cups (what you call physical reality), you and I actually create our reality of it subjectively. You have infinite power to create your world --

-- the broken cup is a tragedy (you are creating a tragic reality)
-- I hated that cup, and am so glad it's finally gone without my having to throw it away -- that would piss off my mother-in-law who gave it to me as a wedding present) (you are creating relief)
-- oh, god, maybe I have some neurological disease! Dropsy!? (reality = fear and pain)
-- I am five years old and wheeee! how fun to see that cup go kerploosh! (fun, learning)
-- etc. etc.

There is nothing objective about that cup falling and breaking, except perhaps that it has fallen and broken (and even that part is arguable ).

I wasn't going to come back, but your post made me feel like it. It was such a simple and clear explanation of your position it helped me clarify my own. To me, the fact of an objective broken cup is more important than it seems to you (although I certainly agree with all that relativity of responses stuff). In a way, this is kind of what my original Buddhist point was, that Buddhism is about seeing the objective reality (The monk sees a cup fall. It breaks. That is all.) All of the emotional reactions - which to you I guess are like a menu you can choose from - are, in the kind of Buddhist philosophy I'm talking about, just as unreal and distracting and problematic as all others. Of course, it's a choice, and my way is dry and joyless to some, I'm sure. Still, it is freedom, and you can even still choose one - but with awareness that you are creating it in your mind, since it is not objective, it is not actual.

Besides, it is very easy to spout warm fuzzy philosophy about the non-tragedy of a broken cup.

[cylon]

The funny thing is the guy that turned me on to Dr. Paul also follows LOA.

[Angela]

Thank you for quoting me, John.

[alegro]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Well, if there is no subject to define the object "cup" in the event of falling and breaking, then it is irrelevant to reality as you or I know it. Without the perceiver involved, the cup could have not fallen and broken or there was never a cup in the first place or there is and is not a cup falling simultaneously. We don't know.

This and the following is just a distraction. You come with some grandiose words about philosophy, but you fail to address my central issue: A couple of observers see a cup falling down and breaking.

You have claimed before there won't be events on which all observer would agree, i.e., no objective reality. I give you an example of what would is objective reality, at least for me.

If the event of the cup falling and breaking is not "objective", some observers would agree that it happened, others would not.

In my perception of the world, there won't be some observers that could continue to use the cup and some observers that could not do so. If it broke, neither could continue to use the cup.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

My point is that a cup only exists in a subjective universe. From a purely objective universe, you would have a bunch of atoms flying around running into each other. The universe only has some sort of meaning relative to a limited perception by a conscious being.

If all conscious beings - who in this case would also need to have senses and the means to communicate with others - agree on the outcome of the event, it is objective.

Whether or not there are beings who don't have senses and/or cannot communicate their findings is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

They have to because you say so? You can't interact with people who perceive the world differently than you? How are we having this conversation then?

I said I cannot interact with people who could at the same time have the cup broken and not broken. Maybe you can. In which case my view of the world would be wrong. But I would need a little more evidence before I consider such a drastic step.

As it happened, I did break a cup some time ago ... it was my favorite one. And I threw it away. If you could convince me that it didn't break and that I still have it, I might reconsider.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

To my 6 year old daughter, this forum is meaningless. It doesn't enter her subjective reality. It isn't real to her. The Webkinz website, however, is quite real to her.

Just because she doesn't know about this forum (and probably wouldn't care if she did) doesn't mean it isn't here. She may learn about it in some years. That doesn't mean it didn't exist before or that she wouldn't have been able to google it if she tried.

There are probably also web forums about knitting and other stuff that neither of us knows about. That doesn't mean they don't exist and are created just at the time when we google them. That just means that we don't read them (at the moment).

[John Freestone]

My Bod, I think you've had a rationalist post sitting there undisputed for over 9 hours. You're using some kind of magic formula aren't you? You've had a seance. Or maybe everyone else's subjective server is down in their subjective universe, but mine's ok.

Funny thing happened. A friend's friend's daughter fell off her horse recently, then her horse fell on top of her. Crushed her ribs so she could hardly breathe, ruptured her spleen, various other internal injuries. I say it's a funny thing. Of course, that's subjective. Anyway, her mother was there, sat with her trying to help calm her as she fought for breath. 15 minutes later the ambulance arrived and there was more agony while they tried to manhandle her onto a stretcher and off to hospital. Hours more sitting waiting for bits of news, hoping, praying for good news, while the doctors fought to save the girl's life.

It seems she's going to be ok - no major permanent damage they think. So that's good.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I wasn't going to come back, but your post made me feel like it. It was such a simple and clear explanation of your position it helped me clarify my own. To me, the fact of an objective broken cup is more important than it seems to you (although I certainly agree with all that relativity of responses stuff). In a way, this is kind of what my original Buddhist point was, that Buddhism is about seeing the objective reality (The monk sees a cup fall. It breaks. That is all.) All of the emotional reactions - which to you I guess are like a menu you can choose from - are, in the kind of Buddhist philosophy I'm talking about, just as unreal and distracting and problematic as all others. Of course, it's a choice, and my way is dry and joyless to some, I'm sure. Still, it is freedom, and you can even still choose one - but with awareness that you are creating it in your mind, since it is not objective, it is not actual.

Besides, it is very easy to spout warm fuzzy philosophy about the non-tragedy of a broken cup.

I'm not sure why you don't apply this philosophy to people. People are irrational for the most part. That's all.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by alegro

This and the following is just a distraction. You come with some grandiose words about philosophy, but you fail to address my central issue: A couple of observers see a cup falling down and breaking.

You have claimed before there won't be events on which all observer would agree, i.e., no objective reality. I give you an example of what would is objective reality, at least for me.

If the event of the cup falling and breaking is not "objective", some observers would agree that it happened, others would not.

In my perception of the world, there won't be some observers that could continue to use the cup and some observers that could not do so. If it broke, neither could continue to use the cup.

I can really appreciate your frustration. I've been experiencing it for most of this thread.

The idea of a cup. The perception of the cup. The observers of the cup. All of this is subjective. Whether fifty people say the cup broke or no one says it broke doesn't matter. The object does not exist without a subject to perceive it.

There is not a world in which all observers agree. We all have a particular point of view. Each view is imperfect, with holes like swiss cheese in terms of rational objective perception. But THAT is reality.

If all conscious beings - who in this case would also need to have senses and the means to communicate with others - agree on the outcome of the event, it is objective.

The consciousness comes before the objective event. Consciousness precedes the existence of a material world. Change your consciousness and you change the material world. LOA.

Whether or not there are beings who don't have senses and/or cannot communicate their findings is irrelevant.

Were there other material objects in the room when your cup broke? What are their findings? So apparently, it is relevant.

I said I cannot interact with people who could at the same time have the cup broken and not broken. Maybe you can. In which case my view of the world would be wrong. But I would need a little more evidence before I consider such a drastic step.

As it happened, I did break a cup some time ago ... it was my favorite one. And I threw it away. If you could convince me that it didn't break and that I still have it, I might reconsider.

I'm drinking out of a cup right now. Is it your favourite? It isn't broken. I guess if I were you, I would know.

Just because she doesn't know about this forum (and probably wouldn't care if she did) doesn't mean it isn't here. She may learn about it in some years. That doesn't mean it didn't exist before or that she wouldn't have been able to google it if she tried.

There are probably also web forums about knitting and other stuff that neither of us knows about. That doesn't mean they don't exist and are created just at the time when we google them. That just means that we don't read them (at the moment).

And you could extend this thought infinitely. There may be entire dimensions of existence going on that are outside of your awareness or mine. For example, there may be a dimension in which someone is drinking out of your cup. Maybe it's you 15 minutes before you broke it.

I think your question was, how is the concept of subjective reality useful? What it does is it loosens the awareness from what you assume to be real. You are choosing to see the world as you do. If you choose differently, the world changes for you. The point herein is there is no time/space where you are not you. You choose a perspective every moment and no perspective is right or absolute. Including mine.

[alegro]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I can really appreciate your frustration. I've been experiencing it for most of this thread.

Thank you.

But I wonder ... why are you still around if it frustrates you so much? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to seek pleasure than frustration?

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The idea of a cup. The perception of the cup. The observers of the cup. All of this is subjective. Whether fifty people say the cup broke or no one says it broke doesn't matter. The object does not exist without a subject to perceive it.

Again, you are arguing philosophy of existence instead of answering my question. This paragraph you write has nothing whatsoever to do with my question.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

There is not a world in which all observers agree. We all have a particular point of view. Each view is imperfect, with holes like swiss cheese in terms of rational objective perception. But THAT is reality.

I still do not find any explanation of how this resolves the inconsistencies I have inquired about.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The consciousness comes before the objective event. Consciousness precedes the existence of a material world. Change your consciousness and you change the material world. LOA.

Is there any basis for this claim? I mean, do you know anybody who is conscious before perceiving the material world? Small children perceive the world before they are conscious.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Were there other material objects in the room when your cup broke? What are their findings? So apparently, it is relevant.

No, for the question of how it is possible that two people disagree on the same event this is not relevant.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

You are choosing to see the world as you do. If you choose differently, the world changes for you. The point herein is there is no time/space where you are not you. You choose a perspective every moment and no perspective is right or absolute. Including mine.

That is a series of claims. It is somewhat philosophical, but misses the point.

You see, I could do the same: There is an objective reality. The only thing that is subjective are our thoughts and our interpretation of this objective reality.

But if we just make claims, we won't get anywhere. So you have to come up with specific ways to distinguish the two cases. Otherwise the distinction is irrelevant.


A way to distinguish subjective reality and objective reality is to find something that would be "objective". Could you please come up with a consistent description of how two people can perceive a cup and agree that it is not broken. Then for one person the same cup drops to the floor and breaks and for the other person it does not. Finally, both people can discuss that they disagree if the cup is broken or not - one can drink from it, the other one can not.

In my "objective reality" scenario I do have a consistent description of what is going on. Maybe the "subjective reality" scenario may provide a consistent description of the situation which I am just too stupid to understand. So if you are able to explain, please do so.