Subjective Reality Inquiry

[DiscoDan]

1) Assume reality is subjective.
2) If reality is subjective, then we have a definite, objective statement about reality (namely, that reality is subjective)
3) Since we have an objective statement about reality, reality is objective. This contradicts assumption (1).

Huh? Someone wanna explain this to me?

[Angela]

Subjective reality isn't The Truth. It's a perspective -- use it if it's useful, don't if it's not.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

1) Assume reality is subjective.
2) If reality is subjective, then we have a definite, objective statement about reality (namely, that reality is subjective)
3) Since we have an objective statement about reality, reality is objective. This contradicts assumption (1).

Huh? Someone wanna explain this to me?

Once you accept 1) then you have agreed to accept responsibility for everything in your life, the good, the bad and the illogical.

[Savage]

Since you created an objective statement with your thoughts, it too is a subjective manifestation of your subjective reality. You also manifested the concept of an objective universe to explain the statement in objective terms.

You can create as many objective microcosms within your subjective reality as you desire. They are still creations of your consciousness, as created by your thoughts.

[gigij]

If reality is subjective - and in my reality people only have free will if I assign it to them - then free will does not exist - except for mine.

Makes manifesting things that require co-operation a whole lot easier.

[Martyn13]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You can create as many objective microcosms within your subjective reality as you desire. They are still creations of your consciousness, as created by your thoughts.

Not if you believe that they are not

If reality was completely subjective, it would be impossible to have any meaningful communication

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Martyn13

If reality was completely subjective, it would be impossible to have any meaningful communication

Don't you ever have meaningful communication in your dream?

[joelr]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

1) Assume reality is subjective.
2) If reality is subjective, then we have a definite, objective statement about reality (namely, that reality is subjective)
3) Since we have an objective statement about reality, reality is objective. This contradicts assumption (1).

Huh? Someone wanna explain this to me?

This reminds me of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

They point out that many systems that seem consistent and complete (such as mathematics and in this case - reality) have internal inconsistencies that cannot be solved within that system.

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem says:

For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.

So models of reality need these paradoxes. To fully resolve the paradox one must approach it from a higher meta-system.


The universe is mathematical and math has been proven have inconsistencies.

[Martyn13]

Originally Posted by Martyn13

If reality was completely subjective, it would be impossible to have any meaningful communication

This is because you would always see exactly what you chose to see, rather than what someone else wanted you to see - So any time you wanted to communicate to someone, they would always just see their own subjective reality and interpretation of the words that you had used -
Total subjectivity would isolate people - No meaningful interaction

Originally Posted by Angela

Don't you ever have meaningful communication in your dream?

Yes, and also in the 'Waking Dream'

I didn't however question the existence of meaningful communication.
I simply pointed out that there was a logical paradox if everyone saw things 100% subjectively

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Martyn13

Yes, and also in the 'Waking Dream'

I didn't however question the existence of meaningful communication.
I simply pointed out that there was a logical paradox if everyone saw things 100% subjectively

If you can have meaningful communication in a dream, then you can have meaningful communication in this dream we call waking -- there is no paradox. There is no "everyone." There is only your consciousness, and all those people "out there" are aspects of Who You Are. Just as aspects of who you are communicate with each other in your dreams, that's how aspects of Who You Are communicate with each other in the expanded self's dream.

I shouldn't say "there is no paradox" -- if you are experiencing a paradox, then there one is. But it's all yours -- it's your consciousness generating that paradox -- 100%.

[DiscoDan]

OK, so maybe by subjective reality, Steve just means that everything is created by my (our?) mind.

1) My mind exists.
2) My mind created everything in existence. 
3) Since my mind exists, and my mind created everything, my mind created my mind. This is a contradiction (so either (1) or (2) must be false).

Good luck with this one

[Martyn13]

Originally Posted by Angela

If you can have meaningful communication in a dream, then you can have meaningful communication in this dream we call waking -- there is no paradox. There is no "everyone." There is only your consciousness, and all those people "out there" are aspects of Who You Are. Just as aspects of who you are communicate with each other in your dreams, that's how aspects of Who You Are communicate with each other in the expanded self's dream.

Whether each individual is believed to be a part of ourselves or not, I don't see as relevant to what I said.
If each person / archetype or whatever, sees reality completely subjectively, and thus sees only the reality they wish to see, then this doesn't seem to leave room for another person / archetype, being able to communicate something specific - as they will always see only what they want to see

Originally Posted by Angela

I shouldn't say "there is no paradox" -- if you are experiencing a paradox, then there one is. But it's all yours -- it's your consciousness generating that paradox -- 100%.

Paradoxes are beautiful!

To transcend the logic of this reality and approach the unity, always appears paradoxical when viewed from this duality

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Martyn13

Whether each individual is believed to be a part of ourselves or not, I don't see as relevant to what I said.
If each person / archetype or whatever, sees reality completely subjectively, and thus sees only the reality they wish to see, then this doesn't seem to leave room for another person / archetype, being able to communicate something specific - as they will always see only what they want to see

You don't? If you are using a lens of subjective reality, there is no room for another person, separate from you, you're right. There are only other apparent aspects of you, like me for instance, with whom it's possible to have meaningful communication. (Well, you might doubt that about ME but you have had meaningful communication with other aspects of yourself. Just as "you" have communicated with "you" in your dreams, but it looks like Martyn is talking to Angela.) And those other aspects are you, if you're using the subjective reality lens. If you're not using an sr lens, if you're looking at the world through an objective reality lens and trying to figure out how things could work in subjective reality if there's such a thing as all those other "real" people, then you're not using the subjective reality lens. Simple as that!

[Strem2]

And, after a while, the only world that makes sense is the world through the SR lens.... Otherwise, why did the children stop fighting when I pictured them happy and serene?

Otherwise, why did the traffic start to move after I thanked Divinity for an opportunity to pay attention and pictured it moving along?

[Melchior]

DiscoDan: Alternatively, you could simply believe that there is no contradiction even though you (don't) see it in front of you, and subjective reality allows that.

Personally, I dislike the idea of subjective reality because it just feels wrong. The way it connects reality to your thoughts and consciousness not only makes everything around you seem fabricated, but it also downplays existence in general (much like the idea that all you have of the world is an illusion from zen, but not in the sense that this illusion is a part of the 'real' world, just that the illusion is all there is). I would much rather stop dreaming and live in the 'real' world, even if living in the real world involves an illusion of consciousness. At least then I feel that the world is there, whether I'm involved in it or not. Glancing back at that blog post on subjective reality, the idea that, even if the entire illusion of reality is connected to something and you are merely an 'avatar' in that illusion, there is only one existence in the world (perhaps god), is depressing. granted, if I was that god that was the entire universe's dreamer, I would probably pass the time somehow, but that is coming from a human's perspective, my thoughts, not necessarily the thoughts of a god in this sense of reality. but maybe it's right, there's no way to disprove it, but while i live, I would prefer to live believing that I actually lived. With SR, I don't know if you can ever be 'forgotten' because everything is connected and presumably able to be recorded by the universe/god. I wonder if this is just another way to grasp at the concept of immortality. On the other hand, in OR, if there is no meaningful record of you ever existing, it is essentially the same as you never existing in the first place. Living that way, for me at least, comes to be much more meaningful.

Strem2: to your comments, I ask, why do you have to be the one to make the children happy or the traffic move? couldn't it just have been the avatars of the children wanting to be happy as well. or the traffic picking up because of all the other people stuck wanting to go on with their lives? SR as Angela pointed out earlier is merely a perspective, but what a troubled perspective it is to have. I'm sure it has its benefits, and if it makes you happy, then by all means use it, but the world doesn't have to make sense to be the world. It has nothing to prove, it's just there. I think the SR lens is just as bad of a cop out as solipsism to viewing the world as it is. Sure, there's no way to 'disprove' it, just like there's no way to disprove 'god'. kinda like religion vs. non-religion (at least, I see an objective reality as the basic/fundamental version of the world in the sense that there's nothing unnecessary added on to it). If you were being sarcastic, I apologize for the ranting (although others may find it entertaining...).

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Melchior

I think the SR lens is just as bad of a cop out as solipsism to viewing the world as it is.

Melchior, there's no reason for you to use this perspective if doesn't resonate or have any use for you. You get to choose (I grant that to you! )

And in objective reality perspective, you're not really viewing the world as it is, either. You're viewing a teensy, tinsy little narrow slice of the world, and you are filtering it through all your senses, which differ from person to person, and your generalizations, distortions and deletions, which also differ (wildly) from person to person. Your perception of reality is not reality. You might increase your accuracy, but no matter how close you get, your view of the world will never be reality.

An SR perspective is not necessarily a state of denial or of separation (although it can be, certainly). It can also be used to generate TOTAL acceptance of experience and oneness. A sense that "others" are part of Who You Are can have one feeling compassion, inspiration, and willingness to make a difference for "others" that goes far beyond what's available in your average objective reality bear. You want to care for the world as if it were your own self. You have an enhanced ability to find win/win solutions, because you recognize that's really the only kind of real solution. You can't really "cop-out" on anything because it's all your responsibility -- it's up to you to change what there is to change, or find a way to play effectively with what you don't have the resources to change now yet.

I'm not trying to talk you into an SR perspective, by the way. It's just fun to articulate this stuff.

[Angela]

I love the metaphor of the two guys standing on the beach, looking out towards the ocean.

One guy is fearful of the ocean, and he sees a dangerous threat that must be avoided at all costs, filled with monsters and ready to pummel and drown him. The reality of that is ultra-present in his mind and body -- his heart races, his eyes widen slightly, he stands ready to back away, adrenaline courses through his veins, his breathing is quick. He is not so present to the rest of the world, because his fear narrows his focus down to the threat -- sympathetic, fight or flight response.

The other guy is a surfer, and he sees overwhelming beauty, to be connected with as often as possible, filled with mysteries and joy, ready to thrill, excite, refresh and invigorate him. As he looks out over the ocean, his reality is ultra-present in his mind and body -- he stands tall and centered, relaxed and confident where he stands and at the same time excited and enthused about what lays in front of him. His whole body is working holistically, easily and effortlessly. He can easily be present to a much wider range of peripheral awareness -- parasympathetic, ready and capable.

Both guys are looking in the same direction at the same time, and what their senses take in of reality give them two vastly different experiences.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Melchior

... ...

Strem2: to your comments, I ask, why do you have to be the one to make the children happy or the traffic move? couldn't it just have been the avatars of the children wanting to be happy as well. or the traffic picking up because of all the other people stuck wanting to go on with their lives? SR as Angela pointed out earlier is merely a perspective, but what a troubled perspective it is to have. I'm sure it has its benefits, and if it makes you happy, then by all means use it, but the world doesn't have to make sense to be the world. It has nothing to prove, it's just there. I think the SR lens is just as bad of a cop out as solipsism to viewing the world as it is. Sure, there's no way to 'disprove' it, just like there's no way to disprove 'god'. kinda like religion vs. non-religion (at least, I see an objective reality as the basic/fundamental version of the world in the sense that there's nothing unnecessary added on to it). If you were being sarcastic, I apologize for the ranting (although others may find it entertaining...).

It's not that I am alone (solipsism) but that I can take 100% responsibility that the Universe is responding to my/our intentions. You and I are from Source/Divinity, here to experience our independence as human. To do that, our ego shields us from our connection to Divinity as our minds shield us from being awake when we are asleep.

The myth of Adam and Eve teaches us about the costs of the ego. It was the ego that stopped allowing Paradise. At any time in your life, you can allow Paradise once more.

So, back to your question. The children are happy. They were never unhappy. All of us are happy as we are in reality still with the Source. In my SR, the children appeared to be stressed, and when I remembered who I am and allowed them to be who they are, there was no more stress.

The traffic doesn't exist because it is an element of space/time which isn't real. It's all data, as Dr. Hew Len would say.

Dr. Hew Len tells of curing an entire hospital of the criminally insane by taking 100% responsibility as he read their files and took responsibility every time he felt an emotion. He asked Divinity for help to forget/destroy the memory that permitted that man's illness, and Divinity always grants our prayers/requests/intentions.

In one of his books, or videos, Dr. Gregg Braden tells of a trip in Egypt. A group was on a tour bus and the trip was supposed to take most of the day. There were checkpoints along the way. The group spent the trip talking excitedly about what they were about to see, sharing information and ideas. At one checkpoint, they were delayed while the bus driver talked with the monitors. It seemed that they had arrived several hours early.... The only explanation was that they, as a group, had bent the time/space continuum with their visualization of "being there".

So, there is data that the objective world only exists while we are in collaboration with our ego to create the objective world. As soon as we chose to see instead our subjective reality, the rules change and the world becomes more adaptable as in a lucid dream.

It's not a cop-out for me. I am studying what it is like to be a conscious creator while still part of the time/space continuum. If it would be a cop-out for you, it is because you are here to do something else.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

1) Assume reality is subjective.
2) If reality is subjective, then we have a definite, objective statement about reality (namely, that reality is subjective)
3) Since we have an objective statement about reality, reality is objective. This contradicts assumption (1).

oh, oops I forgot to show why it reminded me of Godels theorem.

compare the above with

1)Assume system x is believed to be consistent and complete.
2)There have been shown to be inconsistencies in system x that cannot be resolved by using system x.
3)System x is incomplete.


which is something like Godel's 1st incompleteness theorem and the above paradox.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Angela

Melchior, there's no reason for you to use this perspective if doesn't resonate or have any use for you. You get to choose (I grant that to you! )

Haha, thanks.

And in objective reality perspective, you're not really viewing the world as it is, either. You're viewing a teensy, tinsy little narrow slice of the world, and you are filtering it through all your senses, which differ from person to person, and your generalizations, distortions and deletions, which also differ (wildly) from person to person. Your perception of reality is not reality. You might increase your accuracy, but no matter how close you get, your view of the world will never be reality.

Yes, and I also know that I can only perceive only parts of reality because I know there is a reality outside of myself. And so, whenever I find something new in the objective reality outside myself, scientifically through collaboration I am aware that technically you will never be able to be 100% sure of anything, but say I have a very high confidence level and the law of induction doesn't break down on me, then I can simply accept that and add it to what I know of as reality.

An SR perspective is not necessarily a state of denial or of separation (although it can be, certainly). It can also be used to generate TOTAL acceptance of experience and oneness.

I believe OR can do the same, after all, we are all living in the same universe.

A sense that "others" are part of Who You Are can have one feeling compassion, inspiration, and willingness to make a difference for "others" that goes far beyond what's available in your average objective reality bear. You want to care for the world as if it were your own self. You have an enhanced ability to find win/win solutions, because you recognize that's really the only kind of real solution. You can't really "cop-out" on anything because it's all your responsibility -- it's up to you to change what there is to change, or find a way to play effectively with what you don't have the resources to change now yet.

This is the part I have a problem with, the whole responsibility thing. that SR creates a drive to problems that exist, why do problems exist in the first place? where does that responsibility come from? I don't see a reasonable answer in the SR perspective, whereas in the OR perspective there is one, basically that these problems exist by happenstance, and there is no inherent responsibility, you take on responsibility if you decide to take it on.

I'm not trying to talk you into an SR perspective, by the way. It's just fun to articulate this stuff.

Agreed. It certainly helps to get my views clearer (and finally in writing) as well.

Also, with the metaphor of the two men and the sea, while nice, I still see the general pattern in SR of people involved in it, consciousness involved in it. And that's another thing that I don't really like about SR, that it only really deals with conscious living beings instead of everything. Who made consciousness so special? I believe that it is merely a byproduct of existence itself, I quite like it I might add, but try putting yourself on the same level as the computer you are reading this from and you might get why I think OR has just as much of an ability to create oneness with the world, perhaps even better than SR.

Originally Posted by Strem2

So, back to your question. The children are happy. They were never unhappy. All of us are happy as we are in reality still with the Source. In my SR, the children appeared to be stressed, and when I remembered who I am and allowed them to be who they are, there was no more stress.

The traffic doesn't exist because it is an element of space/time which isn't real. It's all data, as Dr. Hew Len would say.

Fair enough, I'll admit that going with an SR view, there are many ways things can happen. However, that comment about the traffic not existing/being data, is somewhat odd in that there's a distinction between the information being processed and the processor of information, and how the vessel for the processor of information is information itself (i.e. the body). Yes, I've heard of out of body experiences, but quite frankly, I've never heard of anyone having anything while they were unconscious. At least, that's what I've heard...

With the bit on spacetime, I'd have to think that either something was miscalculated, or that those people discovered a way to travel differently through spacetime, although not faster than the speed of light.

So, there is data that the objective world only exists while we are in collaboration with our ego to create the objective world. As soon as we chose to see instead our subjective reality, the rules change and the world becomes more adaptable as in a lucid dream.

Or is it that there is simply a greater focus on when the rules seem to blur, but everything returns to 'normal' afterward. How is it that this isn't thought of as the brain being deceptive just as it does with the perception of OR?

It's not a cop-out for me. I am studying what it is like to be a conscious creator while still part of the time/space continuum. If it would be a cop-out for you, it is because you are here to do something else.

A quote I quite enjoy throwing around is that: "It's all hardware". (which means including the 'software') For those who take up computers, program, and stuff, try thinking about it in terms of state machines and how 'software' is really just very intricately formed hardware. there is a difference with layers of abstraction and all, but at the fundamental level they are both essentially the same thing.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Haha, thanks.


....
A quote I quite enjoy throwing around is that: "It's all hardware". (which means including the 'software') For those who take up computers, program, and stuff, try thinking about it in terms of state machines and how 'software' is really just very intricately formed hardware. there is a difference with layers of abstraction and all, but at the fundamental level they are both essentially the same thing.

But isn't a computer a lot more fun with software?

Originally Posted by Melchior

With the bit on spacetime, I'd have to think that either something was miscalculated, or that those people discovered a way to travel differently through spacetime, although not faster than the speed of light.

If you think in terms of travel, you're thinking objective reality. Let's look at it subjectively....

A Pocketful of Miracles explained that time/space is like a soccer field with ten markers on it. In normal time, it takes a child, ten years to travel from the first to the tenth marker. But, imagine if the child were using a moped, she'd be able to go from the first to the last much more quickly, changing your sense of time but not of space. If the field was to shrink, she'd pass all of them almost simultaneously, changing your sense of the size of the field, and the length of time to travel 10 markers. Finally, imagine that you are the field! From this perspective, there is no time and no space.

So, how hard was it really, for the bus to drop 2 hours of time from their trip? The only people who were confused were those holding the watches and expecting them two hours later. For everyone else, the trip felt absolutely normal.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Strem2

But isn't a computer a lot more fun with software?

Sure it is, but that software is a layer of abstraction we create for relatively complicated operations of hardware. Do you think of your software as a separate entity from your hardware? perhaps, but it is the same way that we think of consciousness as a separate entity from our physical bodies. I have no qualms about labeling it software, because it really is just simpler to speak of things categorically, but it is also important not to forget the fact that at the fundamental level, it is all just hardware.

If you think in terms of travel, you're thinking objective reality. Let's look at it subjectively....

A Pocketful of Miracles explained that time/space is like a soccer field with ten markers on it. In normal time, it takes a child, ten years to travel from the first to the tenth marker. But, imagine if the child were using a moped, she'd be able to go from the first to the last much more quickly, changing your sense of time but not of space. If the field was to shrink, she'd pass all of them almost simultaneously, changing your sense of the size of the field, and the length of time to travel 10 markers. Finally, imagine that you are the field! From this perspective, there is no time and no space.

So, how hard was it really, for the bus to drop 2 hours of time from their trip? The only people who were confused were those holding the watches and expecting them two hours later. For everyone else, the trip felt absolutely normal.

first thing I want to make clear, separating time from space is something frowned upon by the principles of relativity. I don't really get the metaphor with the soccer field beyond that though. so what if your perspective changes? the more you travel through space dimensions, the less you do in time. and you wouldn't get any 'information' by traveling faster than the speed of light (scientists have proved this point already. 'things' like the light even can travel technically faster than the speed of light through some materials, but what is received through the other side is incomprehensible to retrieve anything that was sent through). But if the field 'shrunk', wouldn't it be biological time that was affected, not necessarily the time of an outside observer (again, this is objective reality here). even if to the person traveling to the markers experienced some differences to normal day (such as traveling there quicker, the width of the markers shrinking, etc.), I don't think it would contradict the notion that all physical laws are the same on any reference frame.

An Example: A muon traveling from outside our atmosphere, although it has a lifetime of only about 2 microseconds, traveling at the speed we observe it to be, it reaches the surface of the earth in a much 'longer' time from a classical point of view, but to it, the distance it actually travels is 'shorter' due to the speed at which it is traveling. but in both reference frames, the numbers all add up if we take the lorentz transformations into account (that thing in relativity that causes the changes in spacetime distances (commonly called the interval)). Another thing that could have theoretically happened was a large scale quantum tunneling, but for some reason, I think the driver would notice if they missed a checkpoint. Can thoughts affect Q.T. though? I have no idea, and I'm not sure if there's been any study on it either.

If you really want to be subjective, I still don't know where that gets you. where then do you draw a line between viewing reality as it is and viewing a reality that you created? or perhaps your point was that there is no difference, and that OR is just a special case of SR. I suppose I could potentially buy that, but then I would have to disregard the existence of others, and I quite like other people on the whole. disregard not in the sense that others aren't 'there' but in the sense that others are others on their own and don't require me to support their existence. And to me, manifesting something on an objective level is so much more significant than on a subjective one if only because the subjective level is dependent on the observer, and the objective level is common across all reference frames, much like the laws of physics I discussed just above.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

1) Assume reality is subjective.
2) If reality is subjective, then we have a definite, objective statement about reality (namely, that reality is subjective)
3) Since we have an objective statement about reality, reality is objective. This contradicts assumption (1).

Huh? Someone wanna explain this to me?

why is saying "reality is subjective" a objective statement?

what about the subjective reality idea of Steve's that you are the only one? what if it's more that there are no "self entities" at all, including yourself?

[iDreamCatcher]

This thread resembles the general state of self-help industry:

Lots of mind stimulating theories with zero practical value.

Gleb

[Silenced140]

Its all about how you look at it or your perspective.

Reality doesn't change like you may expect it could because people are so in line with their current way of life.

Reality is whatever you want it to be

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by joelr

oh, oops I forgot to show why it reminded me of Godels theorem.

compare the above with

1)Assume system x is believed to be consistent and complete.
2)There have been shown to be inconsistencies in system x that cannot be resolved by using system x.
3)System x is incomplete.


which is something like Godel's 1st incompleteness theorem and the above paradox.

I was scrolling through some stuff about objective and subjective reality again, mainly in part due to the whole LoA stuff that I've been looking at recently and this bit here caught my attention. There's also some stuff regarding the Q&A posts that I have disagreements with that I'd like to address (although, I'm not sure if Steve has updated his views on reality or not, so this may be out of date). Anyway...

With regards to Godel's theorem, either you have SR which is incomplete (because there are objective statements about the system itself outside the otherwise consistent system, namely that SR is complete), or OR which is inconsistent (because there are objective statements about the system itself outside the otherwise complete system, namely that OR is consistent).

In other words, contrary to what the Q&A claims about SR, OR is able to 'contain' SR rather than the other way around (i.e. SR cannot contain OR because it is incomplete).

And in my opinion, a system that is complete barring only a statement of its consistency is than one that is inconsistent barring only a statement about its completeness, in which it really isn't complete. That said, I agree that the lens you look through (and must look through) while observing this objective reality is a subjective one.

Essentially, even the statement: "Everything just is" is an objective statement.

EDIT: Subjective reality is quite lonely if you ask me...

[OlderWiser]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

Someone wanna explain this to me?

You put a lot of stock in words and concepts. You're basically just playing a game with the words, and assigning them value that they may or may not have.

[Acting Like Godot]

You see, DiscoDan regards his mind as a small, limited thing, very separate from the rest of the universe, and presumably rather fragile, mortal and vulnerable. Perhaps he regards his mind as nothing more than a by-product of approximately 1.4 kg of white & grey matter known as the brain.

That's why he wrote what he wrote.

At a deeper level, his difficulty can be rephrased as follows - "Who am I?". As he seeks to answer this question, he will try to find a definition for himself, and then he will discover what a tricky exercise that is.

After all, he is not merely his own name. He is not any of his social roles. He is not his material possessions. He is not even his own body, which is merely an ever-changing collection of proteins and other compounds that is regularly collapsing and generating itself. Nor is he merely his own thoughts, which are after all, arguably just patterns of electrical impulses in the brain synapses.

As DiscoDan probes deeper and deeper into the question, he will find that "he" evades himself. Go far enough, and he will see that either he is the universe, or he is an illusion. Or both the universe, and an illusion, at the same time.

When he arrives at those sorts of conclusions, he will look back at his own earlier comment, and he will see it in quite a different light.

[nicbrahms]

Originally Posted by Silenced140

Its all about how you look at it or your perspective.

Reality doesn't change like you may expect it could because people are so in line with their current way of life.

Reality is whatever you want it to be

Thank you my friend you took the words right out of my mouth.

Reality is exactly what you want it to be. Anyway does it make a difference if we agree or disagree that it is objective or subjective or both? After all we are all one, we are all God, we are all one consciousness. If you want to put others as seperate to you do it, if you want to see all as an extension of yourself then do that, it amounts to the same thing. We all came from one place, we will all return to one place.

In the end we are one. Full Stop.

Love, light and luck to you all.

Nic Brahms

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by iDreamCatcher

This thread resembles the general state of self-help industry:

Lots of mind stimulating theories with zero practical value.

Right .... At some point, we have to ask ourselves:

"Ok, now that I learned / heard /know about this theory/concept/knowledge .... what do I do next?"

And then we go do it.