Selective perception

[Liara Covert]

It is suggested that we each see what we choose to see. To believe each person or creature appears in our life for a purpose is to progress and to recognize more detail about our soul. Does this mean we could assume that all we envisage is either a figment of our imagination or a message from an angel? To sense a degree of presence in something beyond what you know is an awakening. How might you remove the splinter from your own eye?

[Akashic_Librarian]

What see is a direct projection of our own consciousness. Nothing else exists except what you percieve right this very second. So if you don't see your friend, hear them, touch, or smell them, then they don't exist right now.

When you understand that you are the ultimate creator, then everything makes a lot more sense

[Dive Bomb]

^That is, if you subsribe to the subjective reality model.

Otherwise, what you're seeing is not a projection of you, it could be a real conscious being

[palimpsest]

To realize that we have a splinter in our eyes is the first step, I think. The rest I just percolate like so: As Diane Ackerman said, we live on the leash of our senses. To recognize that our senses lie to us, and still recognize that the world they present is really the only view the world that we have -- then we can appreciate the truths our senses tell us. Then there's the social dimension -- perhaps truth can be found in the mean of many perceptions, if we'd share them. With that input, we have distilled our inner selves with the knowledge (or exposure to) many paradigms -- and by comparison and contrast with each other it creates enormous confusion that eventually gives way to understanding. Least, that's how I find it.

[AndreaHess]

The way I see it, when we incarnated into this third dimension, we agreed to a certain frame of reference - to take on a physical body (or the perception of one, anyway), to communicate with language, etc. Within this frame of reference, we all create our own "reality." But we do agree to serve as mirrors to each other, so that we can experience ourselves as creators of our chosen reality. We attract experiences and people according to the energies we choose to embrace.

I do believe in the multiverse - we all create our own little Universe, our reality. But we do play within the same frame of reference here in the third dimension.

Thinking too hard about this is bound to give us a headache. Why not just enjoy the experience of creating our particular reality?

[Liara Covert]

These posts remind us that we all have different ways of seeing, even now.

Akashic_Librarian: You seem to think as people like Eckhart Tolle. I wonder if you've read any of his recent book, A New Earth?

Dive Bomb: What alternatives do you sugegst other than the subjective reality model? What model do you use, if any one at all?

palimpsest: It intrigues me that you say, "the world the present is the only view of the world we have." Can you offer examples where your own confusion has given way to a deeper understanding of things? How do you define that line of enlightenment?

Andrea: If we could imagine unlimited realities, then it would be difficult to experience and learn about ourselves and our potential in any one or handful of those to grow. To enjoy any reality, might require we turn a blind eye to others. Ever see the film, The Sixth Sense?

[palimpsest]

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

Can you offer examples where your own confusion has given way to a deeper understanding of things?

My social studies teacher would give us a whole unit to do, on, say, the benefits of free trade. The theory of how it worked, the beauty of the "invisible hands" of supply and demand. We'd lap it all up like good students and he had us chant, "Free trade is good, the whole world should do it--" then he'd interrupt us with "WRONG!" and showed us the ugly side of free trade: slave labor, and how the prices set by supply and demand didn't consider future availability of resources (gasoline, for example... by pricing it so cheap in the past because there was so much of it, that resource became depleted so not only is it more expensive now but there's not gonna be much for long and we're dependent on it,) and so on. Presenting two extreme points can be a less good way of journalism, but the confusion that causes does highlight the necessity of understanding all sides before one forms an opinion. Until then, I thought I had opinions -- I didn't, I was just parroting. I was safe and happy as a parrot, but wouldn't leave the excitement of confusion and resolution for anything. (We thought -- multilateral world powers. How's that to happen? Still mulling over it, more's the beauty.)

Most recently, I stumbled upon this long-loading video and while it was pretty clear which "side" the documentary is on, the opposition was presented thoroughly in action and fairly in motive enough for me to... get confused, which was a good thing because confusion means I'm thinking. Even after the documentary concludes the unequivocal defeat of intelligent design-- they still keep in mind that laypeople equivocate. Presently I've reached the penultimate conclusion of Pantheism, but am working on some kinks (that would be easily solved by apathetic Pantheism, or just a material algorithm -- the latter at least leaves a lot of room for discovery and discussion.)

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

How do you define that line of enlightenment?

I believe it's... Hegelian? Only it need not always be a wishy-washy synthesis of ideas if that is his. I think it was Nietzsche who wrote that you can't understand someone's point of view and not agree with them-- understanding can only come to you if you were in someone else's place with that someone else's senses and experiences and wholly holding that other person's opinion as true as yours by definition. That struck me as incredibly unfair at first, but it's true. And false.

As a Chaote I've learned that holding a paradigm doesn't have to be forever and it doesn't have to be a final encompassing irreversible choice -- but best developed to a point where you know where you (under)stand in one and all sides at once... and what I've understood from that is, a lot of perspectives that we think are in irreconcilable conflict with each other -- aren't. They don't even have to reconcile, oppositions can both stand true and the perceptions one selects can be not of your own-- and then becomes your own. Only, it doesn't seem to hold in a social context but it can sometimes only really work with a social dimension (See, right there I see no conflict and don't see why there should be except that other people might see a conflict there and that's a view I don't have even if I do and it's shared, so actually there is and there isn't. Makes perfect sense to me. We have a feedback loop of shared and differed viewpoints all true, for the given value of true.)

[Dive Bomb]

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

Dive Bomb: What alternatives do you sugegst other than the subjective reality model? What model do you use, if any one at all?

I use a hybrid model that utilizes both Subjective and Objective reality. It all depends on the situation I am in. Usually the SR model helps ground me. I like to conquer my fears rather then transcend them. It just works for me. Which is why the objective reality system is useful for me as well.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

What see is a direct projection of our own consciousness. Nothing else exists except what you percieve right this very second. So if you don't see your friend, hear them, touch, or smell them, then they don't exist right now.

When you understand that you are the ultimate creator, then everything makes a lot more sense

I understand that many subjective realists see the world this way, and the objective realists see the world the opposite way, but the thing they both have in common about their belief systems is belief itself. If someone is not in your viscinity, or in observable range, subjectivists will assume they cease to exist, and the objectivist will assume they continue to exist in a percieved outer reality somewhere. In my opinion, the situation is very much like Schrodingers Cat -- both realities are equally real and present...until observed.

This is not to take anything away from subjective realists, their view is just as valid as anyone elses, I just think it is interesting to think about and bring to awareness. And if one is a subjectivist, this post was written by you subconsciously anyhow.

I'm reminded of an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation when Guinan (drink server) and Data (the android) are looking at a Nebula cloud and Guinan is trying to point out an animal in the cloud. Data says, "It is interesting that people try to find meaningful patterns in things that are essentially random. I have noticed that the images they perceive can sometimes suggest what they are thinking about at that particular moment. Besides, it is clearly a bunny rabbit."

Memorable Trekky quotes aside, there are times when living in an objective reality is good and desirable, just as the same is true for subjective reality. At least in an objective reality I'm not likely to run into freaky manifestations of my own inner self . I can just observe how the world works independent of my control. On the other side of the coin, subjective reality moves my locus of control inward, giving me a wonderful sense of power. In that reality, it can be fun to see what my deeper self has to say to me.

[Liara Covert]

Anagogy: I like the Star Trek:TNG example. Human beings often strive toward increased order or disorder and forget (or ignore) additional ways of seeing that could exist in between, such as completely random action. Why is it that people find "no meaning" or "randomness" difficult to accept? Maybe because it takes away the power and control we think we have or can exert.

Dive Bomb: It makes sense to draw from subjective and more objective kinds of perception. Do you believe any other approaches have value for you?

palimpsest: School curricula remind me of media stories. Students and the general public get fed information. Not everyone grows to become discerning and critical of these details. How many people do you know who question what they're told? When you're told one explorer "discovered" a particular place or your told one adversary caused a particular national or international conflict, do you necessarily believe what you're told? I agree with you the multi-lateral scenario adds stakeholders, but does the scapegoating not still exist there?

[maximebellemare]

god ? god is dead.

What you should understand with it is that you've been conditioned n a certain way of perceving things. This is why you act that way. Undunrstand it completely, soon you will become more conscious about what you percive and what you don't perceive abitually. And you will change

[Liara Covert]

Hi Maxim.
How do you tell the difference between "conditioned perception" and other kinds of perception? How would you like to change your perception?

Some people like to step outside of what they've been consciously conditioned to believe. Yet, many of these people may simply be adopting another kind of conditioned point of view. If you think 'god is dead,' what are the implications on your perception?