Personal Development for Smart People^TM Forums

James81 · 08-28-2010, 05:42 PM

If subjective reality suggests that this life is merely a dream or a series of dreams within dreams, then there is no level above this dream in which we don't need sleep or else this dream cannot exist.

The only way a reality in which sleep is not necessary or possible would be one in which we dream.

Thoughts? What are the implications of this realization?

cylon · 08-28-2010, 08:11 PM

When the dream stops existing whatever created the dream to begin with is what remains. When you wake up from a night dream "you" are still here. When we wake up from the earth dream "we" will still be here, but we'll be the awareness that experienced the dream, not the dream itself. Just like when you are dreaming at night, your awareness is still real, even if the dream isn't.

Dreaming implies that at one point, you were awake.

gigij · 08-28-2010, 09:46 PM

Dream is a metaphor for what you are experiencing.

As it is unique and pretty much unexplainable in conventional terms 'dream' is the analogy that comes the closest.

moonrambler · 08-28-2010, 09:57 PM

Who says the dream stops existing?

Angela · 08-28-2010, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James81

The only way a reality in which sleep is not necessary or possible would be one in which we dream.

When did you decide that?

James81 · 08-28-2010, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angela

When did you decide that?

Today.

Piercetheveil · 08-28-2010, 10:46 PM

My thought is it is one to many 'ifs' and that it is to big of an Epistemological question to tackle for me. In short, diminishing returns.

Angela · 08-28-2010, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James81

Today.

Wonderful! If you want to disconnect them, young limiting beliefs are fun to disconnect -- like blowing bubbles.

themaster · 08-28-2010, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James81

If subjective reality suggests that this life is merely a dream or a series of dreams within dreams, then there is no level above this dream in which we don't need sleep or else this dream cannot exist.

The only way a reality in which sleep is not necessary or possible would be one in which we dream.

Thoughts? What are the implications of this realization?

If you want my understanding.. in non-physical we don't sleep that I'm aware of.. "only here"

I think we sleep here cause this is such a "taxing" experience.. we need a break.. so we spend 1/2 to 1/4 of our time here returning to "who we are" after this taxing experience (yes, I have problems with the tax man!

Don't ask

)

James81 · 08-29-2010, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angela

Wonderful! If you want to disconnect them, young limiting beliefs are fun to disconnect -- like blowing bubbles.

Is this a limiting belief?

ssandra · 08-29-2010, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James81

If subjective reality suggests that this life is merely a dream or a series of dreams within dreams, then there is no level above this dream in which we don't need sleep or else this dream cannot exist.

You are assuming that someone needs to be asleep to dream..... ?

ButterflyWoman · 08-29-2010, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cylon

When the dream stops existing whatever created the dream to begin with is what remains. When you wake up from a night dream "you" are still here. When we wake up from the earth dream "we" will still be here, but we'll be the awareness that experienced the dream, not the dream itself. Just like when you are dreaming at night, your awareness is still real, even if the dream isn't.

That is eloquent to the point of joy-inducing. Beautiful. Thank you.

shinyjourney · 08-29-2010, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cylon

When the dream stops existing whatever created the dream to begin with is what remains. When you wake up from a night dream "you" are still here. When we wake up from the earth dream "we" will still be here, but we'll be the awareness that experienced the dream, not the dream itself. Just like when you are dreaming at night, your awareness is still real, even if the dream isn't.

Dreaming implies that at one point, you were awake.

I really like what you said, and it makes me understand better this concept!

Thanks

cylon · 08-29-2010, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

That is eloquent to the point of joy-inducing. Beautiful. Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinyjourney

I really like what you said, and it makes me understand better this concept!

Thanks

Thank YOU.

Lionman · 08-29-2010, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James81

If subjective reality suggests that this life is merely a dream or a series of dreams within dreams, then there is no level above this dream in which we don't need sleep or else this dream cannot exist.

The only way a reality in which sleep is not necessary or possible would be one in which we dream.

Thoughts? What are the implications of this realization?

You just made me think of something.

When you go to sleep and dream, the dream reality is seen as being a higher astral reality where things manifest easier. Like how in a lucid dream you can fly etc.

So if this reality is a dream, then the sleeper should be in a lower reality where things are even harder/slower to manifest than this physical one!

Funny, just had the thought that this ties in with the root chakra in Hinduism and how they say it relates to a sleeping consciousness within matter. The root corresponds to the lowest form of consciousness.

MyEyeIsOpen · 08-29-2010, 01:14 PM

Your thought is cute, but it's fallacious: reasoning by analogy.

aleph null · 08-29-2010, 04:13 PM

IMO, the subject of reality goes back thousands of years to plato and the shadows on the wall.
Reality exists, but we can never know it. Not while we're alive anyway.
All we can see are pieces of the map.

Lionman · 08-29-2010, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyEyeIsOpen

Your thought is cute, but it's fallacious: reasoning by analogy.

Yeah thought it was kind of funny how logically that's how it would work with the dream analogy.
Just goes to show that the dream analogy only goes so far.

The implications of my theory would mean that when you wake up you'd be in hell! Obviously something which doesn't resonate with me so never really took it that seriously. But it was a thought I had in the moment, so I thought I'd share.

ButterflyWoman · 08-29-2010, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lionman

Just goes to show that the dream analogy only goes so far.

No analogy is perfect. It's like trying to show in three dimensions what a four dimensional object looks like. You have to "cheat" and take shortcuts and bend things to make them fit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lionman

The implications of my theory would mean that when you wake up you'd be in hell!

Oh, man, I hate when that happens. Thankfully, it doesn't happen any more in my reality. And, err, it does rather depend on one's definition of "hell", of course.

Lionman · 08-29-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

Oh, man, I hate when that happens. Thankfully, it doesn't happen any more in my reality. And, err, it does rather depend on one's definition of "hell", of course.

It's interesting actually, I remember going to sleep a few times straight after focusing on my root chakra. After doing that I've always had dreams of entering a "hellish" place, though not THAT bad. Usually a really seedy city with a red tinge and pretty low life looking people.

Doing the same thing with the sacral gives a dream which very similar to my waking reality. With the solar plexus its more abstract most of the time focusing on ideas and symbols.

I recommend trying this to anyone who's interested in chakras and the levels of consciousness they relate to!

James81 · 08-29-2010, 11:03 PM

Actually, the objective truth here is that anytime someone says "This is objectively true," people will come out to disprove it.

And you just proved it. Let's add it to the wall of "The Truths" that are out there.

cylon · 08-29-2010, 11:14 PM

Objective can't be observed by humans. Because we only have subjective experiences. We can't experience anything objective. Even if 100% of people believe in something, it is still their subjective interpretation.

Everything is interpretation or perception.

I'm not sure why you are mixing objective and subjective. They are mutually exclusive.

MidasGirl · 08-30-2010, 12:33 AM

Yes, as you delve deeper into Subjective Reality, you begin to see that Objective Reality is but an aspect of SR. What you believe as objective and can be proven, the only proof you have is your observation of it. THAT is subjective reality. Even if others report observing the same exact thing, you are interpreting what they are reporting from your subjective reality.

shinyjourney · 08-30-2010, 05:30 AM

Yes, we will never have an absolute answer about what is objective as we are here, living this experience. Now, i think the best challenge we have, is to learn to see our reality (subjective) the best we can to enjoy our lives and be happy.
And one thing, i think, for me, is to say to myself and to realize that LOA is "real" and that i can give my life the way i want.

And it's crazy how sometimes, any time now, i feel bad, and i see the place where i am really dark, and when i start to realize that i have bad thoughts and start thinking about good things, it's like light arrives in the place i am, and my feeling and the look i have on the place is totally different, i even find that the place is bigger when i start thinking about good things.

So, yes, i think that if with one thought i can see the same place in two dramatically different ways any time now, i think it will be hard to find what is the "objective" reality with our own eyes...

Virginie

cylon · 08-30-2010, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinyjourney

So, yes, i think that if with one thought i can see the same place in two dramatically different ways any time now, i think it will be hard to find what is the "objective" reality with our own eyes...

Well said! I was thinking the same thing to myself earlier. Thanks.

ButterflyWoman · 08-30-2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James81

Actually, the objective truth here is that anytime someone says "This is objectively true," people will come out to disprove it.

Because nothing is REALLY objectively true. It's all about framing, context, etc. There are things, like certain scientific experiments, that can be repeated, etc., but that's not objective, either. It's just something that works no matter who does it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cylon

Objective can't be observed by humans. Because we only have subjective experiences. We can't experience anything objective. Even if 100% of people believe in something, it is still their subjective interpretation.

Everything is interpretation or perception.

Yeah. What he said.

James81 · 08-30-2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

Because nothing is REALLY objectively true.

So the fact that nothing is really objectively true, is in and of itself an objective truth.

cylon · 08-30-2010, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James81

So the fact that nothing is really objectively true, is in and of itself an objective truth.

If all experience is subjective, the word "objective" means absolutely nothing. It's a nonsense word because it describes a state of mind that doesn't exist.

Are things "true" whether you believe them or not? I think this is where you are making your error, confusing truth with being objective. Things are always true, but nothing is EVER objective, because truth can only ever be perceived.... (duh duh duh)... subjectively.

I guess another question you'd ask would be, "yeah but what happens if I'm not around? Isn't truth still objectively true without me to confirm it?" NO! There is only one awareness, yours... and it is eternal. Your illusory physical body might fall away but your awareness has always been there and always will be. So can't escape subjective through physical death, sorry.

So your next question could be, well what if my subjective truth conflicts with your subjective truth? How do we know who's truth is correct? Well, that's another nonsense question because there is only ONE awareness. One observer.

The bottom line is there will never be an objective truth in and of itself, SEPARATE from the observer. In an SR model, that is.

Instead of trying to make SR fit into OR, why not just stick with OR? Why put yourself through the headache of trying to understand something you have no interest in genuinely practicing?

cylon · 08-30-2010, 06:05 PM

Most people understand the "everything is God" analogy. God is here, there, everywhere... nothing that exists is not God.

If that were true, and God is never separated from himself, how could there be an "objective" observer OF God, if everything IS God?

In SR you are God. There is nothing that is not you. So the idea of an object or observer, who is outside of yourself, and independently, "objectively", observing you in a detached way.... just not possible.

James81 · 08-30-2010, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cylon

Most people understand the "everything is God" analogy. God is here, there, everywhere... nothing that exists is not God.

If that were true, and God is never separated from himself, how could there be an "objective" observer OF God, if everything IS God?

In SR you are God. There is nothing that is not you. So the idea of an object or observer, who is outside of yourself, and independently, "objectively", observing you in a detached way.... just not possible.

Yeah, but these are still "objective" statements.

It's kind of like when Steve experimented with label-free relationships a while back, but still used certain labels to describe what was happening. The lack of a label is yet another label.

A lack of an objective observation is but an objective observation.

I understand the basic ideas behind SR (I've been reading Steve's blogs about it, and the posts here about it).

But I'm starting to see that even in a purely subjective frame, there's still objective beliefs about it.

08-28-2010, 05:42 PM	#1 (permalink)
James81 Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 12,690	I found an objective truth within subjective reality... If subjective reality suggests that this life is merely a dream or a series of dreams within dreams, then there is no level above this dream in which we don't need sleep or else this dream cannot exist. The only way a reality in which sleep is not necessary or possible would be one in which we dream. Thoughts? What are the implications of this realization?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
If subjective reality is true, where does objective reality come from?	Freefall	Spirituality, Consciousness, & Awareness	7	04-19-2011 02:20 PM
how can the objective truth be different than the subjective...	ttt	Spirituality, Consciousness, & Awareness	10	09-03-2009 05:42 AM
When is reality objective and when is it subjective	ar81	Emotional Mastery	0	10-15-2008 02:23 PM
I-M in objective and subjective reality	Frans	Intention-Manifestation	14	11-19-2007 10:41 PM
Your current belief: Is reality subjective, partially subjective, or objective?	Erock	Spirituality, Consciousness, & Awareness	37	04-10-2007 01:33 AM

08-28-2010, 08:11 PM	#2 (permalink)
cylon Family Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,852	When the dream stops existing whatever created the dream to begin with is what remains. When you wake up from a night dream "you" are still here. When we wake up from the earth dream "we" will still be here, but we'll be the awareness that experienced the dream, not the dream itself. Just like when you are dreaming at night, your awareness is still real, even if the dream isn't. Dreaming implies that at one point, you were awake.

08-28-2010, 09:46 PM	#3 (permalink)
gigij Retired Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: gone Posts: 1,061	Dream is a metaphor for what you are experiencing. As it is unique and pretty much unexplainable in conventional terms 'dream' is the analogy that comes the closest.

08-28-2010, 09:57 PM	#4 (permalink)
moonrambler Family Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: N.E. Wisconsin Posts: 3,473	Who says the dream stops existing?

08-28-2010, 10:46 PM	#7 (permalink)
Piercetheveil Family Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,070	My thought is it is one to many 'ifs' and that it is to big of an Epistemological question to tackle for me. In short, diminishing returns.

08-29-2010, 01:14 PM	#16 (permalink)
MyEyeIsOpen Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 700	Your thought is cute, but it's fallacious: reasoning by analogy.

08-29-2010, 04:13 PM	#17 (permalink)
aleph null Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 39	IMO, the subject of reality goes back thousands of years to plato and the shadows on the wall. Reality exists, but we can never know it. Not while we're alive anyway. All we can see are pieces of the map.

08-29-2010, 11:03 PM	#21 (permalink)
James81 Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 12,690	Actually, the objective truth here is that anytime someone says "This is objectively true," people will come out to disprove it. And you just proved it. Let's add it to the wall of "The Truths" that are out there.

08-29-2010, 11:14 PM	#22 (permalink)
cylon Family Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,852	Objective can't be observed by humans. Because we only have subjective experiences. We can't experience anything objective. Even if 100% of people believe in something, it is still their subjective interpretation. Everything is interpretation or perception. I'm not sure why you are mixing objective and subjective. They are mutually exclusive.

08-30-2010, 12:33 AM	#23 (permalink)
MidasGirl Family Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Off this forum from 10/27/10 to 10/27/11. Yay me! Posts: 2,944	Yes, as you delve deeper into Subjective Reality, you begin to see that Objective Reality is but an aspect of SR. What you believe as objective and can be proven, the only proof you have is your observation of it. THAT is subjective reality. Even if others report observing the same exact thing, you are interpreting what they are reporting from your subjective reality.

08-30-2010, 05:30 AM	#24 (permalink)
shinyjourney Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Paris Posts: 158	Yes, we will never have an absolute answer about what is objective as we are here, living this experience. Now, i think the best challenge we have, is to learn to see our reality (subjective) the best we can to enjoy our lives and be happy. And one thing, i think, for me, is to say to myself and to realize that LOA is "real" and that i can give my life the way i want. And it's crazy how sometimes, any time now, i feel bad, and i see the place where i am really dark, and when i start to realize that i have bad thoughts and start thinking about good things, it's like light arrives in the place i am, and my feeling and the look i have on the place is totally different, i even find that the place is bigger when i start thinking about good things. So, yes, i think that if with one thought i can see the same place in two dramatically different ways any time now, i think it will be hard to find what is the "objective" reality with our own eyes... Virginie

08-30-2010, 06:05 PM	#29 (permalink)
cylon Family Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,852	Most people understand the "everything is God" analogy. God is here, there, everywhere... nothing that exists is not God. If that were true, and God is never separated from himself, how could there be an "objective" observer OF God, if everything IS God? In SR you are God. There is nothing that is not you. So the idea of an object or observer, who is outside of yourself, and independently, "objectively", observing you in a detached way.... just not possible.

Personal Development for Smart PeopleTM Forums

Personal Development for Smart People^TM Forums