Subjective Reality - Life Is Not My Dream

[Angela]

Wait a second.... and your signature says, "Improving Sleeping Habits"? You doing some sort of experiment?

[Marco Polo]

Oh, that blog is there to help ME more than anyone else.

But yes, it's all technically an "experiment", in every sense that working 2 graveyard shifts in a row could be considered an experiment. LOL

EDIT: WHy don't you tell me specifically where you think my argumentation was incorrect, and take it from there?

I mean, I love when people respond "you're just being subjective" to absolutely everything I say, but... well, that just seems like a way to skirt the opposition while evading whatever you don't agree with.

Is a great panacea, isn't it? Everything is subjective - everything you say to me is mere opinion (you creating YOUR reality, not relevant to me) - therefore everything you say can be promptly refuted on the grounds of your subjectivity. Hence you are instantly alleviated from the burden of opposing views. Or you could just "shut me out" and pretend I never existed as more than a mere flicker of your consciousness... hang on, why am I arguing AGAINST this?

[anotherthinker]

If you issue a "challenge", why not expect people to battle it out?

Well if reality were subjective to me...I wouldn't.
A 'reasoning challemge' to find the truth not a 'battle'.
My world would be a group of beings who love to think and want to get to
the truth in a non-combative way.
BUT
Since our reality is objective I'm subject to the interaction of 'others'
LOL

[Marco Polo]

Yeah, if you frame it in those terms, OR could be considered downright evil. Does that make me a "darkworker"?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by anotherthinker

Well if reality were subjective to me...

You sure your reality is not subjective? Here you are, declaring that this thread is occurring in your reality as "combative", and yet here's Marco Polo saying it occurs for him like good fun and games. I'm not sensing any combativeness, either -- just discussion. So don't you think your response is what is creating the reality of your combat? Or do you think this thread is objectively combative?

Likewise, Marco Polo, (now, you're exaggerating -- I don't tell you you're being subjective every time you speak ), I'm not skirting any argument by pointing out when you are experiencing your life in a subjective way but thinking it's objective reality. There is no argument, actually -- I've just pointed out my differing views, asked you some questions, and objected to some of your mischaracterizations of what I've said. I don't think you are "wrong" and I don't feel a need to convince you to believe as I do.

And that's a good illustration of the illusionary nature of language as "proof" that reality is objective -- that we don't create our reality. Language is a one of the most powerful tools we use to create our reality -- we speak things into being!

(for instance, your man-on-the-moon remark. JFK declared early in the 60's that we would put a man on the moon before the end of the decade, and his personal power was at least as instrumental at making that happen in 1969 as all the rocket science.) (as I see it.) ()

[Marco Polo]

All this begs the inevitable question - are you creating me at this very moment? Do you believe that any amount of thinking on your part has a bearing on what I'm about to say next? Stop for a second and try it. Try to create my next couple of words.

I mean yes, I concede that I can't even prove my existance to you... not with 100% credibility at least although possibly close to it... but you can't control T H I S or this or this. Didn't see that one coming, now didya? That's because I (physical tangible objective me) created it, not you.

sorry but I felt oddly compelled to pull that one.

- - - - - - - - -

on a different note, it's no wonder this is a touchy issue for some people. It's messing with our whole sense of reality isn't it! If anything should be controversial, this is it.

[anotherthinker]

All this begs the inevitable question - are you creating me at this very moment?

Heck no...you are further proof that our shared reality is objective.
I now remeber why I stay away from these boards.

If I concentrate hard enough will you all go away...LOL

Wait...since this is an objective reality I can choose not to return and
you 'others' are independant and free to continue.

Wait...were you 'here' before I came?

[Angela]

No, I (the avatar, "Angela") does not know or control what you do or say before you do or say it. That's not the way the I/You consciousness creates reality in the human game. That wouldn't be much fun, would it?

It also wouldn't help me with the purpose of the game: which is to expand more and more into who I am: unlimited power and abundance. At least, not that I know of right now. Maybe "later" in the game, clairvoyance will be part of what I do. I don't think controlling what other avatars do will ever be part of my game.

There are plenty of "limits" (actually the illusion of limits) that the IYC builds into the game, holograms that our consciousness projects into being, and all of us avatars "agree" on, like gravity, and also "limits: that are more personal experience, not common to everyone, like, "I won't be happy until I find a lover, parts of my body are too small/big, I'm scared of the water, I don't have enough money, etc. etc." All created by you.

And: I didn't communicate any of this until you read it.

[bellemeadows]

Well, I have to say, I've enjoyed this debate immensely.

I do believe the world as I experience it is a dream; something I am experiencing through my specific avenue of awareness. But really, it is just a belief. The way beliefs show up for me is that once I believe them, my experience in the world / dream experience / whatever, just reinforces them.

So if you are like me, whatever you believe is true, is true for you.

I think where one runs into trouble is in trying to prove the belief is correct, is right. That one perspective is right, and another is wrong. How do we know that about any perspective?

So, lets say the world isn't a dream. Still, there is room in my belief-system for great mysteries having to do with our changing perspective. For example, 100 years ago, Einstein would have been considered a lunatic; and go back 600 years, and we would have all believed the world was flat (except for those heretics who didn't). After all, what more proof is needed than what we saw with our own eyes.

Anyway, it just seems to me that different perspectives provide us with different views. The ability to circumnavigate the globe has convinced many people that the world is truly round. Einstein's view of relativity, while not really understandable to me, says time and space, matter and non-matter are not as we experience them either. This view seems to have some merit, because they used that new perspective to design & create nuclear weapons -- who knew?

I'm going to leave room in my belief system for the dream world perspective. Why, you might ask, would I do that? Well, I have somewhere along the line acquired a great deal of empathy for others. A dream just seems so much kinder, and less harsh than if this experience were real. Also, it leaves plenty of room for grace. Although my dream is pretty kind and loving now, there was a day when it was very harsh. When I forgive, I don't forgive people for doing something bad to me, I forgive, because if it is a dream and I am spirit rather than solely body, then I'm free to forgive because it didn't happen -- and see the light of spirit, of Love, shining everywhere I go.

I've become rather attached to that view. So I have to weigh in on the dream world perspective. But heck, how do I know if I'm right or wrong -- Its only a belief.

Although perhaps this entire post of mine which speaks of a dream world is off-topic. Sometimes I do get confused about how the dream world concept and SR fit together. . . . Still, I do want to learn to do that flying around in pink tight thingy that Angela spoke about.

Blessings from Belle,

[Angela]

Trapeze lessons!

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by Angela

Trapeze lessons!

Awwww -- that sounds like fun.

Blessings from Belle,

[torilink]

Originally Posted by anotherthinker

Not so.
If reality is subjective then it's all about me...there is no 'other' to learn from.
So anything which is developed can only be developed by me...there is no one else.
So where did these 'teachers' come from and why did I forget how to walk and talk?

Unless reality is subjective and I'm just schizophrenic.<g>

The "You" you are referring to is the ego and it is self taught. From its beginning it manifests or projects according to its needs & desires. prior to ego development there is only oneness - think of a baby & its mother, the baby doesn't know it is separate, until the age of around 2 when the ego begins to develop the mother is an extension of the baby, and most everything beyond an infant's immediate needs (mom/caregiver/food/drink) is unknown, unrecognized, and for all intensive purposes doesn't exist.

Growth is perhaps illusionary itself - it is expansion as we (ego) need/desire it is created.... this begins the thought patterns, habits, formed beliefs, cyclical projections and so on which become the false self and the outer world.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by torilink

The "You" you are referring to is the ego and it is self taught. From its beginning it manifests or projects according to its needs & desires. prior to ego development there is only oneness - think of a baby & its mother, the baby doesn't know it is separate, until the age of around 2 when the ego begins to develop the mother is an extension of the baby, and most everything beyond an infant's immediate needs (mom/caregiver/food/drink) is unknown, unrecognized, and for all intensive purposes doesn't exist.

Growth is perhaps illusionary itself - it is expansion as we (ego) need/desire it is created.... this begins the thought patterns, habits, formed beliefs, cyclical projections and so on which become the false self and the outer world.

I was thinking something like this: That the outer world is a projection of what we think is not part of our individual personal oneness. And this is also a classic psychology idea. We project part of ourselves into others by reading between the lines or having a bias in interpreting what people say. What you deny to see in ourselves and don't own, becomes what you expect other people to exhibit. That is part of how we create our objective reality. Objective because there is something else that we pretend is not us. The subjective view would not project so much bias.

[dave marshall]

Hi,

interesting question. In my experience:

the language that any of us use is based within our intellect and so language alone cannot prove subjectuve reality. To prove to myself that I do create my experience I have had to learn a new language that you could call an emotional, intuitive language. It is also easier for me to accept that I have two very different set of sense apparatus, the outer senses (5) that I use within physical reality and the inner senses that I use to experience beyond the five senses. This inner language cannot be truley translated into physical language but can be fully understood and used in experiences beyond the limited language we use.

Learning to understand and use the language of the inner senses has allowed me to experience a 'world' beyond the five senses, allowing me to gain more understadning of the nature of reality and it's subjective but co-operative nature.

Although language itself cannot prove subjective reality, using the right language can help open the door to the inner senses and broader experiences.

Dave

[torilink]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I was thinking something like this: That the outer world is a projection of what we think is not part of our individual personal oneness. And this is also a classic psychology idea. We project part of ourselves into others by reading between the lines or having a bias in interpreting what people say. What you deny to see in ourselves and don't own, becomes what you expect other people to exhibit. That is part of how we create our objective reality. Objective because there is something else that we pretend is not us. The subjective view would not project so much bias.

yes, and it is almost like as the ego grows it disidentifies or separates into more and more pieces - guilt, shame, blame, judgement cause the disassociation - thus projecting it outside the "Self" into an ever increasing and expanding outer world.

projection of the dysfunctional thought structures become experiences which either reinforce old beliefs or form new beliefs which cause further separation.

[Joeschmoe]

Originally Posted by anotherthinker

Thanks Belle - you're the only one here (pun intended) so far that hasn't taken a defensive attitude.

Your perceptions on the attitudes of others is a great demonstration of subjective reality. To you the attitudes of others are real, discrete, and measurable. To me no one so far has been defensive. Who's interpretation is correct?

I think this is a never ending conversation. I will leave you with this though. Even if you go by scientific explanation, everything you experience at all happens as neural impulses in your own mind. Any possible way you can experience the world happens inside yourself. So regardless of your beliefs or arguments, they are never happening outside the frame of your own experience. Objective reality might seem very concrete, but all of your experiences, of language, learning, thoughts, and actions take place inside yourself. The universe will only ever be as big to you as your experience, and imagination.

[Marco Polo]

I guess this is the part where Acting Like Godot jumps in and writes a 10-page essay?

[stellasky]

[quote=anotherthinker;186992]I know from personal experience my emotional resonance effects my reality BUT physical reality is not my individual dream or creation.
How do I know this? What's the proof?
LANGUAGE
When I was in infant form and knew no words or language how did I dream
others who could talk and speak and teach me to talk if everything in my personal reality is a product of my individual consciousness?

An interesting topic..and I thought about it for awhile...thinking, language, yes that makes sense...but then I had a few Q's.

If infants are able to distinguish the difference between dreams and waking life (physical reality) by hearing language, how would anyone know if they do? Does anyone have any stories?

The only dreams I have are a bit older than an infant. The earliest memory I have is at three years old and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a dream.

In the first dream, at five years old, monsters were trying to squeeze me. My parents tried to convince me it was a dream, I wasn’t too sure.

In the second dream at five years old, my mother and & were in Medieval France, eating pea soup from wooden bowls at a Monastery. I wore the same modern clothes in the dream as in my physical life and figured that was proof of a dream and not something else.

*Both dreams felt too “real” to be dreams, there was no dialogue or language, just scenes that affected me emotionally.

[wolfgang]

[quote=stellasky;187731]

Originally Posted by anotherthinker

I know from personal experience my emotional resonance effects my reality BUT physical reality is not my individual dream or creation.
How do I know this? What's the proof?
LANGUAGE
When I was in infant form and knew no words or language how did I dream
others who could talk and speak and teach me to talk if everything in my personal reality is a product of my individual consciousness?

I wouldn't say language makes the SR idea not true. Because I don't think of SR as "everything in my personal reality is a product of my individual consciousness". For me, SR applies at our level of shared consciousness or oneness. Everything in my personal reality is a product of being connected to everything. And my individual consciousness can tune into that oneness such that from that POV, everything is emanating through me.

An interesting topic..and I thought about it for awhile...thinking, language, yes that makes sense...but then I had a few Q's.

If infants are able to distinguish the difference between dreams and waking life (physical reality) by hearing language, how would anyone know if they do? Does anyone have any stories?

The only dreams I have are a bit older than an infant. The earliest memory I have is at three years old and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a dream.

In the first dream, at five years old, monsters were trying to squeeze me. My parents tried to convince me it was a dream, I wasn’t too sure.

In the second dream at five years old, my mother and & were in Medieval France, eating pea soup from wooden bowls at a Monastery. I wore the same modern clothes in the dream as in my physical life and figured that was proof of a dream and not something else.

*Both dreams felt too “real” to be dreams, there was no dialogue or language, just scenes that affected me emotionally.

Wouldn't it make sense to see SR in terms of expanded consciousness? And it's not going to be our individual dream - but the dream of the higher consciousness that comes through you. Once connected up to your higher self, everything your individual point of view experiences is what the higher self has put in motion for you, and you get to see it as all you when you can be in touch with your soul's ability to be one with everything.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by anotherthinker

the true ONE is doing it's energetic thing regardless of
our mental influence (I'm glad too we'd probably screw up existence).

This reality is a Joint effort. It's a collective effort.
Who's effort?
All us infinite beings. (Infinite meaning beyond "time".)

Originally Posted by anotherthinker

The red flag for me is there is no way to account for 'developed traits' (intelligence, language, etc) if I am all there is.

What I said above answers that.

Originally Posted by anotherthinker

If there are really no 'others'... how did I teach myself language, how to walk, etc....these are traits acquired through objective interactions.

There are others.
Subjective perception means, you can choose to re-perceive what the others have agreed on.
Is this is a problem?
No.
It just means your extending the agreed boundaries a bit in this game.
(Which by the way happens all the time with new "discoveries", etc.)

We're in a collective game. A game of believing in Limits. When you die, you leave the game.
Do you disappear? No.
You go back to being unlimited. (Which means "creating" instantly.)