subjective reality sounds good to me

[Karess]

Hi i would like a few suggestions on how i should look at things in order to fully grasp the concept of subjective reality. I believe that i get it, but it would be nice to hear others experiences/comments. I would really only like those who have something constructive to say to respond because im not looking for suggestions on why it can't/shouldn't be done.

Thanks in advance to all who contribute. I know this has been a discussed before but thanks to all who will put up with repeating it again.

[munish]

Listen to the podcast no. 16.
StevePavlina.com Podcast #016 - The True Nature of Reality

[DoAnyOfYouExist]

For me "subjective reality" means that reality is subjective to perception. When it comes right down to it your senses perceive your surroundings and paint a picture of "reality" well reality depends on the observer and how he perceives it. You experience this picture of reality as reality but it is only reality filtered through your sensations, thoughts, feelings, memories etc. The totality of reality could never be perceived in the human body. The way subjective reality is talked about here is different then this I believe though.

[Andrew Brunelle]

SUbjective reality is how you see the world at each and every present moment. It is knowing that change can only take place in the present, as it is the only moment that exists. With that in mind, it is noticing things that usually go unnoticed, it is taking absolute responsibility for your life and knowing that things don't happen to you, you create them. Everything is a creation of your conscious or subconscious thoughts. You decide how your life turns out, no holds bars. Just remember that you are what you think about.

[Karess]

so would it be safe to say that subjective reality is playing the 'game of life', from the inside/spirit rather than the outside?

So to play subjectively would be to just CREATE what you want through changing the things within you?

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Karess

So to play subjectively would be to just CREATE what you want through changing the things within you?

That sounds like a good quick explanation to me.

[lorenzo]

You might find this interesting: The Nature of Reality and Its Interpretations.

[Joshiepoo3000]

subjective reality are perceptions, ideas, thoughts, imagination. Subjective reality and objective reality are two totally different things. Subjective reality does not actually exist because it does not fit the definition of the verb to exist. An Oxford dictionary defines "to exist" as to have a place in objective reality. Subjective reality does not "exist" because it does not exist within space. To actually exist you have to have a place in time AND space. Subjective exists in time, but not in space. Therefor it does not actually exist. It has it's own thread of existence. Everyone can agree that our imagination is not real. If it is not real, then it doesn't exist. Imagination is in subjective reality, thus it does not exist. Subjective reality is not based on ones perceptions but it "is" perception. Our perceptions are subjective reality. Subjective reality does not effect objective reality. Art and writing is a transformation from subjective reality to objective reality. The mind and the brain are two different things in that the brain is objective reality and the mind is subjective reality. Subjective reality is not based on what you "know." If you are in total darkness and you stumble over a chair and are knocked unconcious. Then someone removes that chair. You will not know what tripped you when you regained conciousness. That does not mean the chair never existed or that it didn't trip you, because you didn't know. It only means you didn't know. If a tree falls in the woods and you didn't hear it, the tree fell. If an asteroid comes and kills everyone while our backs are turned, we are still dead. Spain exists whether you know it or not. Time exists whether we believe it or not. Nothing can move without time. Time is a factor of objective reality. Objective reality is existence whether we believe it or not. Whether we believe it or not is subjective reality.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

subjective reality are perceptions, ideas, thoughts, imagination. Subjective reality and objective reality are two totally different things. Subjective reality does not actually exist because it does not fit the definition of the verb to exist. An Oxford dictionary defines "to exist" as to have a place in objective reality. Subjective reality does not "exist" because it does not exist within space. To actually exist you have to have a place in time AND space. Subjective exists in time, but not in space. Therefor it does not actually exist. It has it's own thread of existence. Everyone can agree that our imagination is not real. If it is not real, then it doesn't exist. Imagination is in subjective reality, thus it does not exist. Subjective reality is not based on ones perceptions but it "is" perception. Our perceptions are subjective reality. Subjective reality does not effect objective reality. Art and writing is a transformation from subjective reality to objective reality. The mind and the brain are two different things in that the brain is objective reality and the mind is subjective reality. Subjective reality is not based on what you "know." If you are in total darkness and you stumble over a chair and are knocked unconcious. Then someone removes that chair. You will not know what tripped you when you regained conciousness. That does not mean the chair never existed or that it didn't trip you, because you didn't know. It only means you didn't know. If a tree falls in the woods and you didn't hear it, the tree fell. If an asteroid comes and kills everyone while our backs are turned, we are still dead. Spain exists whether you know it or not. Time exists whether we believe it or not. Nothing can move without time. Time is a factor of objective reality. Objective reality is existence whether we believe it or not. Whether we believe it or not is subjective reality.

What if everything you call reality is only illusion, like in your dreams?
Illusions exist, whether you believe it or not.

[lorenzo]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

subjective reality are perceptions, ideas, thoughts, imagination. Subjective reality and objective reality are two totally different things. Subjective reality does not actually exist because it does not fit the definition of the verb to exist. An Oxford dictionary defines "to exist" as to have a place in objective reality. Subjective reality does not "exist" because it does not exist within space. To actually exist you have to have a place in time AND space. Subjective exists in time, but not in space. Therefor it does not actually exist. It has it's own thread of existence. Everyone can agree that our imagination is not real. If it is not real, then it doesn't exist. Imagination is in subjective reality, thus it does not exist. Subjective reality is not based on ones perceptions but it "is" perception. Our perceptions are subjective reality. Subjective reality does not effect objective reality. Art and writing is a transformation from subjective reality to objective reality. The mind and the brain are two different things in that the brain is objective reality and the mind is subjective reality. Subjective reality is not based on what you "know." If you are in total darkness and you stumble over a chair and are knocked unconcious. Then someone removes that chair. You will not know what tripped you when you regained conciousness. That does not mean the chair never existed or that it didn't trip you, because you didn't know. It only means you didn't know. If a tree falls in the woods and you didn't hear it, the tree fell. If an asteroid comes and kills everyone while our backs are turned, we are still dead. Spain exists whether you know it or not. Time exists whether we believe it or not. Nothing can move without time. Time is a factor of objective reality. Objective reality is existence whether we believe it or not. Whether we believe it or not is subjective reality.

This is how most people view reality; I don't personally think this as "wrong", since there is no right or wrong. There are only points of view. I just think that it is a limiting and very partial way of seeing reality. In fact, seeing reality only from this point of view is like observing a 3D object only from one side. It doesn't give you the whole picture, and it is not effective in all (most, if you ask me) situations.

The explanation you provided makes some basic assumptions, and assumptions are where other truths hide.

Think it this way: what is "space"? Isn't space something that you perceive with your senses and something that has a projection in your mind? And isn't that projection the only think that exists of space for you? How can you tell that a chair is in space or if it is only in your mind?

There are people that see things that other people don't see (call them hallucinations). For these people the "hallucinations" they are having, or the reality they are experiencing, are as real as the reality your perceive. Who is to judge what's in space and what's in the mind? It's ALL subjective. For me reality, hallucinations, time, illusions, thoughts, objects, and everything else are all made out of the same substance, that is the world in my mind.

Space is as much as an illusion as a dream or as time. Time doesn't exists, in fact the only moment you live is NOW; everything else is only a memory (which dwells in the mind) or a plan (which also dwells in the mind). It all depends on the point of view you decide to take.

For these reasons, everything is an illusion, and all illusions are real. Don't let definitions of the word "exist" make up your mind about concepts that have a wider scope. Words have been defined by people, and definitions change all the time, but that doesn't change the concepts. When definitions change, only description change, not the object of the descriptions.

As an experiment, try the "Visual Reality Projection Comparison" exercise described here: Visualization, a forge of reality

My suggestion for personal effectiveness is: stand on multiple points of view, and observe your world from many angles. It will open up many new possibilities.

Something to think about.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Frans

What if everything you call reality is only illusion, like in your dreams?
Illusions exist, whether you believe it or not.

If you read "The Disappearance of the Universe" it actually basically confirms your suspicion above. It's a great book, you might want to check it out. There's a second part to it too called "Your Immortal Reality". Both books I couldn't put down as soon as I picked them up.

[Joshiepoo3000]

We must agree that our perceptions of objective reality are entirely subjective. For that reason we ultimately can and will argue whether or not illisions are real, whether or not the imagination is real, but by arguing that we will argue whether or not reality is real. If you want to argue that, subject, then what are we talking about? If reality isn't real, then why are we arguing in the first place? If we are going to agree that reality isn't real, then this whole conversation is pointless. If we can't agree that reality doesn't exist or exists and that it is or is not something more than subjective, then why are we talking about it? Doesn't it make this entire forum pointless? Is this not common sense? I am going to argue that existence is, and, thus there is a differenence between subjective and objective reality. I am also going to argue that space and time ARE objective reality. I am going to argue that there is a barrier between our mind and our brain and that the difference between subjective and objective reality is that barrier. I am also going to argue that, being we continue to talk about this subject, reality exists.

[Joshiepoo3000]

There is a difference between existence and objects that exist. Because space and time are existence, it does not mean space and time don't exist. In order to experience something it has to have come in contact with one of the five senses. Neither space nor time are experienced, thus existence is not experienced. You can experience the objects in existence, but not existence itself. This makes existence a concept, thus subjective reality. So you take the experiences from objective reality and transform those experiences from objective reality to subjective reality. Objective reality is not existence. Objective reality is within the definition of existence but it is not existence. To exist you must have a place within objective reality, not to exist you must be objective reality. The definition is to have a place in it, not to be it. So because you can't touch, taste, feel, hear, or see space doesn't mean it does not exist. I have to go for now, but I will be back.

[Joshiepoo3000]

I have two more points to make. If everything is subjective and nothing is objective, then what about control? If everything is subjective to the observer then nothing should be out of that observer's control. The next point is the fact that if you don't trust the definition of words then how can you use them. How can you use your term for the word illusion and be able to make sense of it to someone else? Or any word for that matter? The only way is to make a point or a statement. Well, people don't just understand statements. You have to show some proof, a lack of proof will leave what is commonly known as "doubt." I am going to break this down for you. I know that this will make you mad or offend you. The reason you get offended is because it will be broken down so much that you will say, "Duh, stop telling me things I already know." It is four things: something that you know already, something other people know because it is something broken down to the point that someone else taught it to you, something that you learned long ago enough that you "know" it, and it is something I obviously already know, because I am telling you. By telling you something you already know and explaining it to you as if you didn't know it, action occurs called "patrionizing." If you don't except definitions you won't understand anything I am telling you. Here is an example otherwise known as evidence, and also know as objective reality. By the way, I am not trying to be a jerk. I am just trying to get my point accross. I don't question anyone elses intelligence. What exactly intelligence is, is for another discussion.
My previous two posts bring up an interesting question that seems to have an obvious answer, other wise known as "common sense." A person that would argue the existence of reality should also argue the existence of common sense in objective reality. The question is, "What is the point of talking about subjective reality or objective reality?" First, how do we know we want to talk? Because we blogged in the first place and responded to a response to our blog. By blogging we are inviting a discussion. Other wise your blog would be in the singular for, "blog", in which you blogged once and walked away never to blog again, because you never cared about what other people thought. This is one example of common sense. Lets proceed. The reason we talk about these issues is in hopes of coming to some agreement. How do we get to an agreement? By convincing one another. If evidence is not objective then neither of us would be able to provide evidence to support our claims. Thus we would inevitably never agree. The fact that evidence does exist, is supported by the evidence that people do agree on issues. The reason people will disagree on the existence of a difference between subjective and objective reality, is because of two reasons. 1.) If you make a distinction that objective and subjective realities exist in a parallel relationship, eventually a conclusion will be made that God exists in some form of reality. This is because if God exists in your thoughts then God exists in some form of reality. If you say all existence is subjective then God actually exists, especially if you suggest that illusions exist. If your definition for illusion suggests that illusions are real, then when God forms in your thoughts, otherwise known as a subjective reality, God is then real. If a person doesn't believe in God they will argue both points. 2.) We disagree because existence itself is a subjective reality. As I have stated before, existence is not objective reality. To exist you must have a place in objective reality. Time and space is objective reality. You cannot experience time and space. Just because your body deteriorates and dies does not mean you experience time. It means your body has a space in time. Space is the distance between to points. In time two points are places in time. In matter two points are defined as nouns. A noun is a person, place, or thing. You don't experience space without those nouns. If you don't experience space, you get confused because you don't know where you are. We don't experience objective reality or existence only the place we have in it. Thus we identify our existence. To bring it all together, we argue because we argue over existence itself. We don't experience existence itself, but rather the objects that have a place in objective reality, or what exists. To experience something means you observe it through one or all of the five senses. This is what "evidence" is. Until one can give another person enough evidence of a particular existence, one person will not be able to convince that person that existence is true. Being that I cannot produce evidence of time and space, you will not agree on its existence. However, we can agree on the evidence of the objects that exist in that time and space.

[Joshiepoo3000]

If illusions exist whether you believe it or not, then illusions are objects in objective reality. If illusions exist, then thoughts exist. If thoughts exist, then, when God is in your thoughts, God exists.

[DoAnyOfYouExist]

You make very good points and from my experience I believe a gigantic infinate ball of everything possible exists. Your actions dictate how much you see. Time is something I don't even wanna talk about right now.

[lorenzo]

Joshiepoo3000,
Interesting discussion. If we were around a table, or if I had alot of time on my hands, I'd love to have it. I am very familiar with your point of view, since it was mine at some point. I grew out of it, but it took time.

Unfortunately having such discussion here would be mostly a waste of our time. I will get to some of the subjects you mentioned in some of my blogs, and I welcome your comments. Stay tuned, unless you already decided not to. There are also many books on the subject that you may want to read. I have many recommendations on my site if you are interested.

One of the points you are missing, in my humble opinion, is that nobody is interested in convincing you of anything, or bring evidence of anything either. In fact, it is not about evidence because you will accept or refuse any evidence or logic that anybody brings. The evidence is inside of you, like anything else in your reality.

It would be your choice to convince yourself of anything, and I have no interest in influencing you in any direction since you already made your mind. It's all matter of what you think, and your point of view.

Personal growth is growing out of ways of thinking that limit your existence. You can sit in a spot, and observe something from the same point of view for ever, and convince yourself that what you see it is all there is. If you are happy with it, that is absolutely great. No need to move out of there!!

If you just moved from your point of view, and observe reality from other angles, a lot of things would make a lot more sense and you would all in a sudden know how to deal or read situations. You need to try to find out, my words would never be good enough, and they shouldn't.

Much love.

[Joshiepoo3000]

I agree that arguements between a subjeactive realist and a realist is a waste of time. I am willing to disagree on the subject of convincing. Your point of view that you don't want to convince me of anything is incorrect because it contradicts the reason that you respond to me at any rate. If you were uninterested in convincing me, then you would blog once and walk away. Ultimately, by reading my blog, you gain in experience in that you gain insight as to what I think. That matters to you because you are curious as to what other people think. This gives you some reflection on whether your thoughts are real or not. If you prove me incorrect, then you prove yourself correct. The only way you can prove me incorrect is by not allowing me to prove you incorrect. Thus if I make you contradict yourself, you change the subject entirely and use another example to imply that you have not contradicted yourself. You will continue to do this change of the subject into infinity, thus I never prove you wrong.

[lorenzo]

You make a lot of assumptions. Why do you think I am trying to convince you of anything? Having a conversation, in my world, doesn't mean trying to convince anybody of anything. It means exchanging opinions and points of view.

Since you ask... the reason why I responded was to provide another point of view so that you could examine it and decide if it works for you or not, not to prove your points wrong. In fact your points are "right". If you state that your point of view is the only point of view that is right, then I disagree, but I don't really want to change it either. I am giving you seeds to expand your horizons. Your choice to throw them away, or make them grow. I have no expectations of either. Why I do this? Because I decided to do so. It makes me happy and helps me grow as well.

The reason why I blog and provide my points of view is to learn from others that might show me different points of view and help me grow. It is also to share the results of my inner research, which might benefit others.

The reality interpretation you provide is a very good description (in the sense that you phrased it and described it very well) of the classic "first level of reality" interpretation, which is the most common everyday interpretation that most people believe in (although they might not be able to describe it as well).

I do agree with it, and it is effective at times to think that way. I also think that to grow you need to be able to switch point of view when it is most effective to do so. We do not live in a simple three dimensional world. We live in a multi dimensional world, if you let it be so. When you do, horizons open up and growth occurs.

Since you create your reality, any point of view you take is "right" in your reality. What you have to watch for, in my opinion, is limiting beliefs, not wrong beliefs (limiting beliefs are beliefs that are not effective for you). You can decide to grow, or to stay where you are. I am not claiming that what I tell you would make you grow, I am claiming that it is your decision to examine what I am saying and that decide if it is effective for you or not. If it is not, then move on Your decision. I have no control on that, nor I want any control over that either even if it was possible to gain it.

A belief is something that you believe true, how can that be wrong? If I "proved your wrong" I would not have done anything except influencing your decision that your belief was wrong. I find that it is not effective for anybody, and most of the time doesn't work in the long term for the person that became convinced either.

People get in places when they want to and when they are ready for it, not when somebody push them there. People learn because they get somewhere on their own, if they decide to explore. Explorers are not pushed, they seek.

From my point of view taking a standpoint and claiming that everything else is wrong is limiting, not wrong. I follow the "Law of Truth", which states that effectiveness is the measure of truth. True for me is what is effective in my subjective reality, and not what is "true" in some illusion of objective reality.

Your point of view is what the ancient wisdom of the Huna System calls the "first level of reality". There are many other levels that most people ignore. If observing other points of view is not effective for you, than don't. The issue is that until you do, you don't know.

I hope it makes sense.

[Joshiepoo3000]

You suggest that if a car were to hit you and you didn't see it, or know it killed you, then you didn't die. You suggest that if you don't know you are dead, then you aren't dead. You are dead, because other people see you dead. Plants don't grow from partial seeds. They also need water and light. No man can pick and choose from another mans ideas and agree on the same theme. Their themes will be altered. If they cannot agree, then peace will not occur in that conversation. We continue to speak to reach an understanding. If we reach no understanding, then our only understanding will be our disagreement.

You say:
"You make a lot of assumptions. Why do you think I am trying to convince you of anything? Having a conversation, in my world, doesn't mean trying to convince anybody of anything. It means exchanging opinions and points of view."
Then you say:
"The reason why I blog and provide my points of view is to learn from others that might show me different points of view and help me grow. It is also to share the results of my inner research, which might benefit others."

I can't understand you when you contradict yourself.

Why are you trying to grow this seed, if you are only picking and choosing what it needs to be nourished by? Why do you say it is for you to decide what nourishment makes you grow, when to grow the best way you need the right nourishment? You can help a plant or anything grow better by giving it the correct "ph" level. The ph level has to be the correct one, because you can't just choose what ph level it will grow best in.