Can two people manifest opposing intentions?

[Six times Nine]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

I hate to keep harping on language, but I don't see how they are two perspectives in any meaningful sense. A perspective is a "subjective valuation of relative signficance." Human beings are made of atoms, which are made of subatomic particles. It's like saying "one perspective is this is a glass of water, and another is it is a glass of H2O" - you have said the exact same (objective) thing twice, and not subjectively evaluated anything. There is no greater or lesser signficance to the subatomic composition of a human than the operation of the whole. They are two different ways of describing the same reality, not subjective valuations of reality.

The same reality... but vastly different prespectives. And notice that neither "I'm a human being" nor "I'm a collection of subatomic particles" is a full description of reality. Both convey only part of the truth, which is why ALG called them "perspectives".

[Bradshaw]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

We should create some kind of FAQs for the newbies posing the same old questions. Or maybe just provide links to the old threads.

Not a bad ideia, actually.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

It's like saying "one perspective is this is a glass of water, and another is it is a glass of H2O" - you have said the exact same (objective) thing twice

Glass? Water? Where? Where? It's mostly empty space.

[newmark]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Whatever you know reality to be is merely your state of knowledge.
Whatever you perceive reality to be is merely your perception.
Whatever you understand reality to be is merely your understanding.
Whatever you interpret reality to be is merely your interpretation.

Your own states of knowledge, your own perception, your own understanding and your interpretation are all subjective.

Therefore reality, in any form that you can know, perceive, understand or interpret it, is subjective.

This might be true, but it doesn't stop people from wanting to get further away from the most subjective of subjective realities to the objective reality that lies behind it.
A FAQ section would never do, however, as many people like to discuss issues themselves. Also it assumes a LoA orthodoxy, which obviously doesn't exist.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by newmark

This might be true, but it doesn't stop people from wanting to get further away from the most subjective of subjective realities to the objective reality that lies behind it.

That may be what they want. But what they are merely doing is changing their subjective reality from one form to another, which is an ongoing process anyway.

As I had said, whatever you perceive reality to be is merely your own perception, and therefore subjective. You may attempt to alter your perception faculties, by making them "sharper", "stronger", "better", "deeper", "wider" or whatever else.

If you succeed, you will then perceive reality differently. But whatever you then perceive reality to be is still your own perception, and therefore subjective.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

That may be what they want. But what they are merely doing is changing their subjective reality from one form to another, which is an ongoing process anyway.

As I had said, whatever you perceive reality to be is merely your own perception, and therefore subjective. You may attempt to alter your perception faculties, by making them "sharper", "stronger", "better", "deeper", "wider" or whatever else.

If you succeed, you will then perceive reality differently. But whatever you then perceive reality to be is still your own perception, and therefore subjective.

I believe there is a fundamental reality beyond our current perception, which is not subjective.

We can never (at least, not in this lifetime) fully apprehend fundamental reality head on.

We are limited by our own sensory apparatus.

We perceive 'something', then we interpret the results of that perception. No matter how advanced our machines are at detecting 'something', we are still limited to interpreting the resulting data by our own minds and senses.

We are always twice or thrice removed from reality. We are looking at reflections of reflections (remember Plato's cave shadows analogy?).

At best, we are interpreting the data from a device we have designed, which has recorded (not 100% faithfully) a signal or pulse being emitted from 'something'.

Some of us who are old enough, will remember the poor sound quality of recorded music in the 1960s.

All we had then were tinny sounding, mono radios, audio cassettes and vinyl records, all producing dubious quality of sound.

Remember the term, hi-fi (high fidelity)? Since then, the quality of sound reproduction has improved greatly. The closer we get to the orignal sound, the more awesome and enjoyable is the experience.

Yet, no matter how close we get to the original, it is till a recording, a copy, a snapshot.

But, in a sense, ALG is right. Our only knowledge of reality is our current perception of it. Our perception of it matters greatly as to how we live our lives and how fulfilled they can become. But, that does not mean that our subjective perception is, in fact, reality, but we can believe it is, if we so desire.

Person A may see a flower and be filled with awe at its colour and beauty. Person B may see the same flower and think, so what? Same objective flower, different subjective perception.

Perhaps, person A has a deeper, transcendent understanding of the reality of the flower. I don't know. For the experience, I would prefer to be person A.

Does there need to be a clash between objectivity and subjectivity? I don't think so.

I believe we can gain a deeper understanding of the nature of reality both through objective, scientific analysis and through subjective perception/belief.

[Willworker]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

I hate to keep harping on language, but I don't see how they are two perspectives in any meaningful sense....are two different ways of describing the same reality, not subjective valuations of reality.

Actually, you love to rely upon symbolic language which is, at its very nature, symbolic and representational. Language is another way of perceiving reality - and here we go again.

If you can only conceive of a glass of water as a glass of water, actually it DOES affect how you interact with it. You will be able to drink from it, pour it into houseplants, etc. Running an electric current in it "doesn't make sense" and doesn't seem to serve a purpose.

But if you conceive of it as a collection of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, then electrolysis suddenly makes sense. By simply altering your perception, you're capable a new method of manipulation.

You have a dogmatic obsession with reality, which is unfortunately, only a perception of reality. I am further saddened by the fact that you must believe that you are correct, but alas, perhaps you are a my manifestation of a dogmatic blindness. To that, I am grateful to you for the contrast for it has helped my own enlightenment.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Six times Nine

The same reality... .

Well, good, then. We're getting somewhere .

But still, the term perspective has meaning: a subjective valuation of relative significance.

If there were a President who was agreed to have handled a terrorist attack well, but launched an ill-fated war, there could be several perspectives. One could be he was great, because of his handling of terrorism. One could be he was the worst, because of the war. To reach either of these opinions, one would be engaging in a subjective valuation of the facts, and judging one event more important than another. The extent the facts were all agreed, there would be validity to both perspectives. Or, if someone died, one person could focus on the loss, and discount happy times spent together, and another could focus on the happy times, and say they outweigh the loss. They are each taking facts and differently weighting their significance. That is the meaning of perspective.

"That's a man in a red sweater" isn't a different perspective than "that's Bob," because there isn't necessarily any subjective weighing of the significance of the statements - they are not value statements or valued statements. If you hate Bob, but love the sweater, you can have a perspective - you might focus on the sweater, and feel good, or focus on Bob hurting you, and feel bad. But the perspective is not the recitation of the facts, or even the selective recitation of the facts, but the process of weighting facts differently. Hence, ALG's comment that the glass is empty space isn't a different perspective than it is a glass - unless one attempts to draw conclusions from the one set of facts, while minimizing the significance of other facts.

One is entitled to one's own perspectives, not one's own facts.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Willworker

Actually, you love to rely upon symbolic language which is, at its very nature, symbolic and representational. Language is another way of perceiving reality - and here we go again.

Yes, here we go again.

I've pointed out several times, that in order to have a discussion, the participants must agree that language will be used to describe a reality with shared referents, and that a world of pure subjectivity has no place for language.

You don't respond, but you keep talking and talking. You are free to reject language, but not to keep talking about it.

If you can only conceive of a glass of water as a glass of water, actually it DOES affect how you interact with it. You will be able to drink from it, pour it into houseplants, etc. Running an electric current in it "doesn't make sense" and doesn't seem to serve a purpose.

And this supports the notion that the glass of water isn't objective - that it is just as valid to conceive of it as a glass of rat poison - exactly how?

You have a dogmatic obsession with reality, which is unfortunately, only a perception of reality.

You realize that this sentence doesn't make sense, either, don't you? (And is particularly strange given that I haven't suggested that perception is a perfect representation of reality, or the world is exclusively material, or any other dogmatic view, but only rejected the notion that I'm not a cat, Barack Obama, or a disembodied brain in a jar). I'll be sure to alert my psychoanalyst that I've been diagnosed with an obsession with reality. I'm sure he'll be quite alarmed.

I am further saddened by the fact.

What was that word there - fact????? I thought we didn't need no stinking facts here. I thought we were all open to being disembodied brains in jars.

I think your sadness at the fact that I won't consider 4+5 to equal 71 is about as sincere as your feigned inability to distinguish a witchdoctor from a scientist.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

That may be what they want. But what they are merely doing is changing their subjective reality from one form to another, which is an ongoing process anyway.

Maybe I'll just hang out on this board awhile, and keep noting that "subjective reality" is an oxymoron, every time someone uses it. You are literally speaking gibberish. Why do you persist?

You seem to think that perception exists, on some level. If you mean that only perception exists, by all means say so. But then answer the question: "perception of what?" Does not perception require both a subject and an object? And if there is no object, haven't you created a self-invalidating worldview? Don't you at least have to explain what sort of perception exists without objects of perception? And if the objects of perception are not perception itself, then isn't it true the world cannot be entirely contained in your mind? Or does it just satisfy you to continue to use words without content, and pretend it's wisdom?

[StAnselm]

Willworker

Maybe you could explain how your beliefs lead you to a less limited existence.

Because it seems to me that you've backed yourself into a universe that is not only silly, but lonely. Ultimately, only you exist. You've said this yourself (to yourself, apparently, but I was listening).

Personally, I prefer a universe with a few friends. A universe of "just me" is pretty limited. So is a universe of a large collective consciousness - really, how dull. (And then I ask myself...does consciousness have any objective properties....but I know not to go there by now on this board).

Also, you have as many rules and conundrums as anyone else. All these questions to sort out: is there an ethical system? What is the exact technique for best manifestation? How do I maintain a positive attitude? All the same problems, limitations, and obstacles that people who accept reality deal with.

But somehow you see that I'm limited because I will state that fleas can't play the guitar, or goldfish can't bite through steel, or that you can't turn water into wine.

If I ask you to turn water into wine, you'll say that you aren't at that level, you don't really desire to do so, or give me some other excuse, but claim there is some value to believing that you can turn water into wine, even if we both agree you will never do it. Apparently believing turning water into wine is helpful if you want a good parking space. Or because you believe you can turn water into wine, it is easier for you to make money. Or, something, but I'm not sure what - I'm having difficulty seeing exactly how your existence is less limited than mine. Please enlighten me. Let me know, too, if you think fleas can play guitar.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I believe there is a fundamental reality beyond our current perception, which is not subjective.

We can never (at least, not in this lifetime) fully apprehend fundamental reality head on.

Yep .... It's probably like a great white light at the end of a dark tunnel, emanating great love.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Some of us who are old enough, will remember the poor sound quality of recorded music in the 1960s.

All we had then were tinny sounding, mono radios, audio cassettes and vinyl records, all producing dubious quality of sound.

Remember the term, hi-fi (high fidelity)? Since then, the quality of sound reproduction has improved greatly. The closer we get to the orignal sound, the more awesome and enjoyable is the experience.

Yet, no matter how close we get to the original, it is till a recording, a copy, a snapshot.

That's an interesting example for me. It reminds of:

(1) the time when I liked music, but had no musical training; and

(2) later on, what happened when I had the opportunity to receive some musical training.

The way that musicians would describe it is that my ear improved. Now of course, I don't think that in a physiological sense, my ears (or anything in them) changed one bit.

What happened, however, was that I grew able to discern small differences in pitch, tone, timbre, accent and other musical attributes. To a much heightened degree, I could discriminate between all the different sounds and details going on in a CD recording.

Listening to a song when I was in Period (2) became a very different experience from listening to a sing when I was in Period (1). It is no exaggeration to say that since then, the reality of music has changed a lot for me. It became a different kind of world. I'm very grateful for it.

Oddly enough, the musical training also altered my ears, in non-musical contexts. It's like when I listen to the humming sound of my air-conditioner, I can actually hear that it's not a sound. Instead it's 3 different humming sounds. When I take the train to work, I sometimes find it very enjoyable to just listen to the sound of the train. Again it is not a sound, it is a stunning tapestry of assorted sounds, each of which kicks in and out or changes, as the train stops, starts, speeds up, slows down etc. And listening to all that fills me with appreciation & amazement for all the different processes must be coordinating and going on, just for a train or air-conditioner to work.

Sounds a bit goofy, I know. Pardon me.

[Willworker]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

Also, you have as many rules and conundrums as anyone else. All these questions to sort out: is there an ethical system? What is the exact technique for best manifestation? How do I maintain a positive attitude? All the same problems, limitations, and obstacles that people who accept reality deal with..

I don't think you've quite read enough and your opinions of systems, like your opinion of what constitutes LOA is being limited by your frame of mind. There's really not much else for me to say beyond that ignorance is chosen, not imposed.

If you really were looking for an answer, you would have seen that these 'questions' are neither universal nor are their answers. Sadly, I think you fit the class of people who have a little bit of learning and far, far more arrogance. I was like that once. I have high hopes that you, too, will outgrow it.

That's all I have to say to you.

[Acting Like Godot]

See, Saint Anselm.

Here's the thing you really don't get. Just about everyone here was pretty much like you before.

You keep harping on and on about your arguments and points of view, as if they were anything other than completely mundane and everyday.

We ALL understand your point of view. We have ALL been there before. Any grandmother on the street, and any 10-year-old child in a playground would understand your view.

It's just that some of us have grown and evolved beyond that kind of viewpoint, and you haven't. That's okay. (Or should I say, that's your problem ).

Take consolation in this - if truly our beliefs are so bizarre, and if truly they are also so utterly wrong, our personal lives should fall into shambles quite rapidly, and we would quickly learn the error of our ways, and recognise that it was Saint Anselm who was the wise, sensible one all along. Right?

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Take consolation in this - if truly our beliefs are so bizarre, and if truly they are also so utterly wrong, our personal lives should fall into shambles quite rapidly, and we would quickly learn the error of our ways, and recognise that it was Saint Anselm who was the wise, sensible one all along. Right?

Of course not.

People can believe quite bizarre things, and still be nice, functional people. People who have quite sensible beliefs don't necessarily have happy lives.

I would think such a wise, deep man as yourself would understand that.

I will just note the psychology. Whenever I have had a friend convert to a new religion, become born again, scientologists, etc., they will do a couple of things:

First, they will act superior and full of pity and false understanding towards the unbelievers. They will say "I used to be exactly like you" - when in fact, the two of us were really nothing alike, it's just a projection to hide behind, rather than engage; and

Second, they will never answer a straight question.

And they believe, quite fervently, exceedingly irrational things.

I have no need to respond in kind. I won't pity you. I won't say I"m the same as you. I will answer any question you care to ask. I won't say that I'm superior to you as a person - I have no way of judging you in a real world context.

I will just say, as others have before, that you believe some patently ridiculous things, and seem to lack any skill in straightforward debate.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Willworker

There's really not much else for me to say beyond that ignorance is chosen, not imposed.

That's not too surprising. You really don't have much to say.

If you really were looking for an answer, you would have seen that these 'questions' are neither universal nor are their answers.

If you had an answer, I would suspect you'd give it. Can a flea play the guitar? If there is no proof of anything in the universe, can language have meaning?

They're simple questions. Surely you have an opinion.

Sadly,

You get sad a lot for someone who creates his own reality.

I think you fit the class of people who have a little bit of learning

Where do you fault my learning? My understanding of Wiggenstein? Kant? Did I misuse basic words in the debate, like "subjective" or "reality" or "perspective?" No, that would be someone else here.

far, far more arrogance.

There is little arrogance in asking questions. There is great arrogance in refusing to answer by pretending you are superior to the questioner.

I was like that once.

You and ALG are exactly alike, on cue, with the last defense of all that have fervent religious delusions and run out of evasions: "I was once unsaved, like you, but you are in my prayers."

Man, talk about arrogance......

[Acting Like Godot]

You sound angry, poor thing.

Now go off and have a nice glass of water. And when you can think calmly and clearly again, you can always come back here.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

You and ALG are exactly alike, on cue

Noooooo ..... Willworker's approach is diametrically opposed to mine.

He's a DARKWORKER I tell you, a DARKWORKER.

Oh wait, you probably don't understand that term.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You sound angry, poor thing.

No, not at all.

I don't enjoy being lectured to, pitied, or talked down to, as you and Willworker have just done. It's rude and unnecessary.

I also find it a bit frustrating to have a debate with someone who doesn't use the proper tools for the job. By this I mean no offense. It is just exceedingly important, if you want to have a debate on pure philosophy, that you not use terms like "subjective reality" that are devoid of content, or that you conflate the use of the word "subjective" in the context of "pertaining to perception" and "subjective" in the context of "arbitrary" or "purely opinion." I can be as guilty of imprecision in language as the next person, but at least I will try to use terms correctly - and they can be terms of art.

It isn't that I'm unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with the notion of an explanation of reality based on pure idealism (like Berkeley). But even Berkeley easily dispensed with the notion that other people are projections of a single mind, if I understand it correctly (I'm not an expert on Berkeley). The approach not only breaks down from the ordinary approach of common-sense realism, but also from any disciplined analysis.

But you seem oddly wedded to the idea. In fact, you appear dogmatic about it, except that your shifting frames make it difficult to tell exactly what you believe. One minute you believe in an individual self. The next you believe in a universal consciousness and deny the self. Somehow these ideas combine to form a view that the individual contains the universal. It doesn't make sense, on any level. Because the intellectual defense of the idea seems to me to rest on the explicit misuse of terminology, it is unlikely that it ever will make sense in the context of this board.

Perhaps if we agreed on terminology, you could communicate it in a logical fashion. But you seem enamoured of your inaccuracies. So, the idea, if it were coherent, can't really be defended in a discussion between the two of us.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

But you seem oddly wedded to the idea. In fact, you appear dogmatic about it

LOL, I knew this part would confuse you.

No, I'm not wedded to the idea. No, I'm not dogmatic about it.

You see, the subjective reality perspective is not essential for the practical use of the LOA.

And the practical uses of the LOA are what I'm really interested in.

The rest is just yakking. Philosophical yakking, theoretical debating, arguing on the Internet, etc etc. Sometimes the discussions are interesting, sometimes tedious, sometimes the other person is quite well-informed and sometimes he is not. BUT all this is still just yakking, and it is largely irrelevant to the practical application of the LOA.

What I'm REALLY interested in is using my mind to alter my reality in positive, beneficial ways. Hypnosis, meditation, creative visualisation and occult practices are some of my tools. (Plus another nifty mind thing called the Silva Method).

Do they work? Sure they do - based on my personal experience.

But does a person need to believe in SR, for hypnosis or meditation or any of those other things to work for him? Nope.

Eg if a person has eczema or chronic pain or a smoking addiction, hypnosis can provide a very rapid cure. But for the cure to happen, he most certainly does not need to believe or even know of the SR theory.

Some of us in this forum are quite experienced in, and quite successful with, assorted esoteric mind techniques (not just the ones I've mentioned, but others as well - such as NLP; EFT; remote viewing; reiki; channelling; astral travelling; clairvoyance etc).

Among this group, some are undecided about SR, and some don't care. Simply because they're happy to find out what works for them, and don't need to know why it works.

But the more intellectually curious ones among us will wonder why ALL this stuff works. What is the unifying thread behind ALL these strange phenomena and experiences. We know it works - we've experienced it for ourselves, to the point when random coincidence is no longer a logical explanation - the question is why it works.

And that leads to the search for a wider theory. A wider theory - to explain our actual experiences.

SR is one of the theories that hold up the best. It's not the only theory; there are others - eg Abraham Hicks has a co-creator model of reality; Hugh Everitt and Seth each have their own Many Worlds theory; and even different schools of Buddhism have somewhat different theories on reality.

But SR is one of the theories which hold up the best (IMO, anyway).

Still, it's just a theory. It's just an explanation. It matters, only to the extent that you need a theory or an explanation.

The really fun part is still the practical application.

So that's why I am not very dogmatic about SR.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

There isn't any need for a thought experiment. This is our reality.

We are unable to experience much of the world: our sense of smell is limited compared to many animals, as is our sense of hearing, and our vision.

We cannot see things that hawks do, or smell things that dogs do.

What's more is that what we do see is in a way an illusion. 99% of the volume of everything we see and touch is emptiness... vaccum. There is nothing between electrons, protons and neutrons, but we perceive everything as a solid. The distance between electrons is enormous in relation to the electrons themselves. I suppose they just move so fast we perceive them as a solid, but the atoms really aren't solid.

[newmark]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I believe there is a fundamental reality beyond our current perception, which is not subjective.

We can never (at least, not in this lifetime) fully apprehend fundamental reality head on.

We are limited by our own sensory apparatus...........

Does there need to be a clash between objectivity and subjectivity? I don't think so.

I believe we can gain a deeper understanding of the nature of reality both through objective, scientific analysis and through subjective perception/belief.

I agree with this. The aim of all religions (as far as I know) is to become closer to this underlying reality. Whether it's called God, enlightenment or the One, or any other name.
The fact that we can't achieve it in our lifetime has never put people off from trying. And, who knows, perhaps it is a big white light; that seems to be the most popular description. I've not got that far yet.
I do think, however, that there are levels or layers of awareness which allow us to move towards a more objective reality. When I talk about objective reality I'm not, of course, talking about the kind of objective reality that "realists" consider to be real. I don't consider the objective reality of science as being anywhere near as objective as it considers itself.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

But even Berkeley easily dispensed with the notion that other people are projections of a single mind, if I understand it correctly (I'm not an expert on Berkeley). The approach not only breaks down from the ordinary approach of common-sense realism, but also from any disciplined analysis.

There's a book you might like to read. It's very readable, very clear and quite interesting, even if you do not agree with it. It's "The Voice of Knowledge" by Don Miguel Ruiz.

Just to be clear - the term "subjective reality" never appears in Don's book. However, certain chapters in the book will give you an insight into this notion that "other people are projections of a single mind".

I'll give an oversimplified nutshell version. All people around you are merely projections of your mind, because you can never know them in any ultimate sense. There isn't any ultimate sense.

Instead your mind is continuously projecting your own opinions, biases, attitudes, assumptions & memories onto them. You create your own personal stories and explanations around every person you meet.

Therefore all other people in your life are merely projections of your own mind.

Similarly other people who meet you are also continuously projecting their own opinions, biases, attitudes, assumptions, memories etc onto you. You are merely a character in the story of their own lives, and the role you play is whatever role they have assigned to you, in their own story.

--------------------

Don's book is a practical book. It isn't particularly interested in abstract theories or philosophical arguments.

One practical point of his advice, that follows from his "projection" explanation, is that there is no rational reason to get offended by other people.

For example, if you say that I am an idiot, that is not a rational reason for me to get upset or offended. After all, it is you, with your own opinions, biases, attitudes, assumptions, memories, who is creating me in the story of your own life (with its own plots and subplots and storylines), and assigning me the role of "idiot" in it.

That's your creation, not mine.

Similarly my mind is constantly creating a story of my own life, and in this story, my mind has also assigned you a role, as a particular kind of character. Don notes that as my entire story is just my own mental creation, and as the assignment of you in my story is also my own mental creation, I can choose to take all of this seriously, or not seriously, or believe it, or not believe it, or simply create another story.

The important point to understand, within Don's framework, is that we are ALL creating the stories of our own lives. Most of us do it unconsciously, without realising it, that is all. Then we mistake our own story for 'objective' reality, LOL.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

What's more is that what we do see is in a way an illusion. 99% of the volume of everything we see and touch is emptiness... vaccum.

If you do some research, you may see that the more accurate figure is 99.9999999999999% (13 nines after the decimal point).

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I'll give an oversimplified nutshell version. All people around you are merely projections of your mind, because you can never know them in any ultimate sense. There isn't any ultimate sense.

Instead your mind is continuously projecting your own opinions, biases, attitudes, assumptions & memories onto them. You create your own personal stories and explanations around every person you meet.

Thank you for the reference. This seems to be the same reasoning you have used before: I do not know the ULTIMATE reality of something, THEREFORE there is NO reality, only PROJECTIONS.

Therefore all other people in your life are merely projections of your own mind.

According to some theories of child development, that is the experience of infants - that the world is an extension, projection, or creation of oneself because the infant lacks the tools to interpret the actions of others. But, quickly, the infant learns that people recognize his cries as pain, his smiles as pleasure, and then learns that other smiles express what he feels, so a smile at an infant causes him to smile back. Getting beyond this phase, of seeing humans as projections, is essential for growth.

The idea that the entire interaction takes place in the infant's head, and not the adults, may have some validity in the abstract, but it is contrary to the way the social animal develops. The infant becomes healthy, learns attachment and trust, by trusting that these "projections" of emotion are real, and then at a later stage learns independence by sorting out that he has a will separate from the adults. If the infant does not take the appearance of emotion as something apart from himself, he ends up a disturbed adult.

Later in life, it may turn out that some of this process was misleading. Although accepting the idea as an adult that other people are projections may work a temporary fix to a certain problem, it seems a psychologically unheathy and probably impossible way to earnestly view the world.

Fundamental among our evolutionary skills is complex communication. It is imperfect. People can be deceptive. Actions can often be misinterpreted. But this process of interpretation is critical to our survival as a species, and we are all unconsciously adept at both sides. Reacting to other's emotion, like reacting to an earthquake, is necessary. There are mistakes in reading and understanding others, but what they do and say has social meaning which isn't just a projection of individual bias.

This is a fractured analysis, in contrast to your views of the physical world. Even one who insists on strict materialism would concede that social interaction is so interconnected that it may make the idea of separate storylines of very limited use. I see separate existences, but one intertwined and jumbled storyline; you see the opposite.

One practical point of his advice, that follows from his "projection" explanation, is that there is no rational reason to get offended by other people. For example, if you say that I am an idiot, that is not a rational reason for me to get upset or offended. After all, it is you, with your own opinions, biases, attitudes, assumptions, memories, who is creating me in the story of your own life (with its own plots and subplots and storylines), and assigning me the role of "idiot" in it.

There's no point in being excessively offended by things that don't matter. Some opinions matter - the government might take away someone's pension, start a war, squander the treasury, raise taxes, etc. It does matter sometimes if you neighbor is hostile to you. It doesn't matter if I'm an idiot, but it may matter if the mayor or your child is. Disagreements have consequences. Emotions are means to sort out our experience and motivate us to action. There are many reasons to be offended at other's beliefs or actions. These responses often occur for sound evolutionary reasons. Feelings of being offended can also be helpful spurs to growth, self-definition, and reflection.

I'm not merely being contrary. In the realm of "self-improvement" (but is that the right term for people who don't believe in a self?), I have tried on other people's ideas and frameworks more than once. Most didn't work. I concluded that the process of improving oneself is hit or miss, and assumptions hurt rather than help. For example, I might want to improve self-discipline, and find a program with six principles and ten steps. But I learned that I was likely to misidentify the problem, as well as to buy into the idea that the problem has a structure that can be so easily dissected. A psychological block or habit can have thousands of roots, unique to the person, that are not necessarily categorized in a dozen boxes. The only way that has ever worked for me is to battle whatever demons or weaknesses I have, one by one, not assume that I know what the root cause is, reevaluate the nature of the problem daily, and treat every instance of failure or resistance as if it might have a separate cause. Trying on the idea that the world is a series of projected storylines may have benefit for someone who believes they are over-sensitive to criticism or emotional, but it may not help someone who has a different set of challenges, and even the person who may benefit will probably benefit even more from dropping the framework, when the time is right to move on.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by newmark

I agree with this. The aim of all religions (as far as I know) is to become closer to this underlying reality. Whether it's called God, enlightenment or the One, or any other name.

Exactly... Er... well, no. Of course I disagree (being a Christian), but one of the things that I am saying is that one of the main goals of the new age belief system is finding commonality between all religions, thereby creating a conduit to unite all religions.

[newmark]

SmartAlx; I'm not a Christian and don't presume to speak for them, but I thought the aim of Christians was to get closer to God.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by newmark

SmartAlx; I'm not a Christian and don't presume to speak for them, but I thought the aim of Christians was to get closer to God.

That doesn't make my point invalid.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by newmark

SmartAlx; I'm not a Christian and don't presume to speak for them, but I thought the aim of Christians was to get closer to God.

The aim of Christians is to get closer and worship their God, not all of the other "false" idol gods.