Subjective Reality: Oxymoron?

[Franco]

I think the theory of Subjective Reality is right on in the following ways:

- I have a much more powerful ability to affect the universe than I would be led to believe by many.
- A particular belief, or unbelief, I hold does directly affect my experience of reality.
- All humans are connected.

However I also am pretty darn sure of the following:

1. Individual experience of reality is subjective but reality itself is objective.

e.g. I see the sky as being blue - if I were look through someone else's eyes it might appear gray to me. Subjectivity. The sky itself has not changed but only the lense through which I view it. Objectivity.

e.g. I see a particular tree as beautiful, my friend sees it as frightening. Subjectivity.

Changing the way I look at something does not change the thing itself - but it does change my experience of it. The trick is that no human being can see anything completely objectively. We aren't big enough. Only God can see reality as a whole.

When my beliefs are completely turned upside down by a new experience it does not mean that reality is not objective...it simply means that I was not objective - my subjective view turned out to be incomplete.

2. I believe intention-manifestation or belief-manifestation does work...to a point. (I cannot manifest 2 and 2 to make 7)

There are many things I can manifest...not because reality is subjective - not because I am creating reality as I go, but precisely because the objective reality is that we humans can affect things around us.

There really is nothing about intention manifestation that proves I create reality. From the beginning of time humans have been shaping and altering their surroundings. Whether we shape something with our bare hands or by pure intention does not matter. (Shaping is the key word here. We do not create anything from nothing - all we can do is affect things that already exist.)

In either case it is the intention doing the work...just with different tools. Whether I intend to move this rock with my hand, or I intend for it to move by some other force doesn't matter. The intention is the same.

When we discover we can manifest things with our intentions we should not be so surprised. We've been doing it since we were children. What we really are surprised about is the fact that there are many more ways to manifest things than we previously thought. We may not have to do it "by hand" as we always thought before.

But when we do manifest something it does not in any way mean that all reality is subjective. It doesn't mean we've "created" something from nothing. It simply means we wrong in our previous beliefs about our abilities to affect the universe for good or for ill. The reality was always there - the objective reality. We just did not see it. We did not believe it. We did not try it because we did not believe it.

3. If reality is completely subjective then we should be able to manifest anything we want at any moment. We should be able to manifest the very method we use to manifest something. But you'll notice that we're always trying to figure out the "best way" or the "right way" to manifest something.

This is because the LOA or the intention-manifestation method as well as the entire universe are not of our own making. (We do not project their existence.) If they were we could make them up however we wanted them. Rather, we are discovering them and if we are discovering them that means that they are real - they are part of an objective reality that has always existed.

I would not want to manifest anything that is only subjectively real anyway - I want the real thing. I want the objectively real thing. When I kiss my wife I am so glad that she exists independent of my willing her into existence. She is real - objectively real.


Franco
Awkward Guy.com

[Frans]

You can have a subjective reality model where there is NO Law of Attraction, and where Intention-Manifestation is only wishful thinking.

Follow this thread in the Intention-Manifestation forum (start at post #39): The failure of I-M

[Michael Chui]

What you're mistaking is that intention-manifestation works perfectly and exactly as expected inside a subjectively perceived reality. A subjective perspective necessarily requires intention-manifestation, because the viewed reality is, by definition, the manifestation of your intentions.

Framed in this way, SR and I-M are painfully indisputable, as they're just flat-out self-evident propositions. Anything convenient is supportive, because that's the way it works.

I can't grow wings and fly because I don't believe I can. That's completely in accord with SR and I-M. If you believed you could, then you'd be able to. That doesn't mean other people would believe it happened, even if they were "present". This is because other people are extensions of yourself, and thus see only what you expect them to see. It's entirely possible that you believe that they see your wings.

It's almost fortunate that SR believers aren't generally philosophical heavyweights. (And those that are also aren't stupid.) Every one of them still believes they're human beings, rather than space whales floating across a temporal web stretched across galaxies.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

A subjective perspective necessarily requires intention-manifestation, because the viewed reality is, by definition, the manifestation of your intentions.

I disagree.

If you take your time to follow this thread in the Intention-Manifestation forum (start at post #39), you'll see that it is perfectly possible to have a subjective reality model without I-M.

[Mike-2]

Franco, I think you have it about right.

The problem with this philosophy is that it combines bits and pieces of Christianity (and Descartes view of the mind/soul) with nondual traditions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. Saying that ultimately, everything is one is to say that there are no fixed distinctions; everything is in process, and everything is affected by everything else, including your own consciousness. But to say that your subjective reality in here is the only reality is to say that you exist separately and distinctly from the rest of the world, which is out there, but if you accept the principle of non-duality, then there is no fixed, permanent subject which exists in here. Everything is out there, including you!

The interesting thing about the subject-object duality is that we can pursue it in two different directions -- either the subject is real, or the object is real. But non-duality embraces both paradoxes by saying reality is simultaneously objective AND subjective. But subjective truth is very different from objective truth -- subjective truth gives us beauty, meaning and love, while objective truth gives us facts and measurements. Neither one of them stands alone as the ultimate reality, and to say that is to get into some fairly serious moral problems. As Charles Manson said, "If all is One, then nothing is wrong." What is Enlightenment magazine calls this view Neo-Advaita. I strongly recommend this article to get some perspective. Here's a quote:

Neo-Advaita seemed to be missing something significant. Isolated from its Eastern religious and historical context and taught as a quick-fix, no-frills contemporary path to spiritual enlightenment, they noticed its tendency to ignore traditional values like ethics and the cultivation of personal integrity. What’s more, it didn’t give much credence to the values of the Western Enlightenment, either. Rationality, critical analysis, and common sense all took a back seat in its mind-transcending philosophy.

[Franco]

Interesting article Mike. Thank you. I like the Charles Manson quote because it is true: "If all is one then nothing is wrong." (Also, nothing is right.) Charles Manson's logic was absolutely correct. And if we are to say that what he did was wrong (and it was) we have to admit that "all is not one."

My mind winces in the same way when I hear people say that truth is relative. It is the same as saying there is no truth.

But, as Michael Chui points out above, one of the interesting things about the subjective reality theory is that no one who espouses it actually lives it:

Every one of them still believes they're human beings, rather than space whales floating across a temporal web stretched across galaxies.

No one really lives practically on a day to day basis treating the universe as though they themselves are creating and projecting it as they go. All of the good articles and interesting advice on this website would be completely pointless if there were not an actual objective reality.

Quote from GK Cheserton on "Oneness," from Orthodoxy:

...the doctrine that we are really
all one person...if I may put it so, does not tell us
to love our neighbours; it tells us to be our neighbours.

and

Love desires personality;
therefore love desires division.

Franco
Awkward Guy.com
Songs and articles for an awkward humanity

[Joshiepoo3000]

At the beginning of this thread, Franco was definitly correct. Subjective Reality and Objective Reality are two halves to the Whole Reality. Whole Reality is Truth. It is yin and yang. Both halves of reality must be satisfied in order for something to be known as real or true. What people seem to disagree on is what objective reality and subjective reality actually is. The only way I can make sense of everything is by defining objective reality as time and space and subjective reality as the mind. Subjective reality doesn't actually exist, because it does not have a place in space, but has a place in time. It is real because it occurs in both halves of reality. Becaue it is real, it is also true. This is the difference between reality and to exist.

[silent_partner]

I agree with Josiepoo3000. I too, as others have commented, am not completely sold on the idea of Subjective Reality as the whole answer. This is what bothers me: I, the creator of reality, has created an entire universe and all of its content. Though most of what I have created lies within the peripherials of my consciousness (space travel, relativity, physics, world poverty, political upheaval...). Very little of what exist in my reality is tangible to my everyday existence. I suppose this could be because my thoughts are focused on such small matters rather than the big picture. However, even within this small spectrum of my reality I am confused as to why I would allow persons that my avatar loves to cease to exist within my reality. Do I intend for them to die because I no longer want them in my reality? Are they no longer useful so I cease thinking about them? Yet once they die, I or my avatar do continue to think about them. So why do they no longer physically exist yet stars, planets and other things and people my avator only experience second hand continue to exist in my reality?

[say]

Originally Posted by Franco

e.g. I see the sky as being blue - if I were look through someone else's eyes it might appear gray to me.

But what is I and what is someone else?
Eventually it's only you (I) who'll see the grey sky, not someone else.
If you involve in something as big as SR, then you probably shouldn't think of yourself as something "small" and separate...
Some more on I/self... in this thread.

Anyway I think Mike-2 explained it pretty well with the duality, non-duality...

Eventually I think SR is the one that makes most logical sense. But that shouldn't be "the ultimate truth" or stuff like that... it's just because that's how the [logical] mind works and how it interprets reality.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Franco

No one really lives practically on a day to day basis treating the universe as though they themselves are creating and projecting it as they go.

Ummmm. I do. It takes practice and I can tell you it is twice as hard if you're experiencing back pain.

Originally Posted by Franco

All of the good articles and interesting advice on this website would be completely pointless if there were not an actual objective reality.

Why would I need an objective reality for that?

I would not want to manifest anything that is only subjectively real anyway - I want the real thing. I want the objectively real thing. When I kiss my wife I am so glad that she exists independent of my willing her into existence. She is real - objectively real.

Why isn't subjective reality real? I've kissed plenty of girls, they were all quite real. Do you really hate knowing you're kissing yourself when you kiss your wife?

[stellasky]

[QUOTE=Michael Chui;32430]What you're mistaking is that intention-manifestation works perfectly and exactly as expected inside a subjectively perceived reality. A subjective perspective necessarily requires intention-manifestation, because the viewed reality is, by definition, the manifestation of your intentions.

Framed in this way, SR and I-M are painfully indisputable, as they're just flat-out self-evident propositions. Anything convenient is supportive, because that's the way it works.

I can't grow wings and fly because I don't believe I can. That's completely in accord with SR and I-M. If you believed you could, then you'd be able to. That doesn't mean other people would believe it happened, even if they were "present". This is because other people are extensions of yourself, and thus see only what you expect them to see. It's entirely possible that you believe that they see your wings.

This is an old post, but a concise one on the topic and while I may be chatting to myself, I must respond to the various brilliant posts, so here goes...

I'm following your logic, which makes credible sense until the "wings" part.

Are you saying that in SR you can grow wings because you believe you could and even if you did no one would believe you because they're blocked by their own belief systems? And that your own disbelief in finding anyone to believe you've in fact manifested wings blocks it from finding those that would?

[stellasky]

Originally Posted by Mike-2

Franco, I think you have it about right.
The interesting thing about the subject-object duality is that we can pursue it in two different directions -- either the subject is real, or the object is real. But non-duality embraces both paradoxes by saying reality is simultaneously objective AND subjective. But subjective truth is very different from objective truth -- subjective truth gives us beauty, meaning and love, while objective truth gives us facts and measurements. Neither one of them stands alone as the ultimate reality, and to say that is to get into some fairly serious moral problems. As Charles Manson said, "If all is One, then nothing is wrong." What is Enlightenment magazine calls this view Neo-Advaita. I strongly recommend this article to get some perspective. Here's a quote:

But non-duality embraces both paradoxes by saying reality is simultaneously objective AND subjective. But subjective truth is very different from objective truth -- subjective truth gives us beauty, meaning and love, while objective truth gives us facts and measurements.

I agree with Franco's post and Mike-2:
In music, as a natural singer, I’ve found that I need “The Subjective”: beauty, meaning, love and “The Objective”: facts, measurements to sing well, to sing with others, to sing to music, in meter and rhythm. I used to think I didn’t, preferred a free form, my own way in contrast to existing forms, but found I was still singing in a measurement, which defied my intention. When I embraced the whole, I became a better singer.

Neither one of them stands alone as the ultimate reality, and to say that is to get into some fairly serious moral problems.
As Charles Manson said, "If all is One, then nothing is wrong."

I agree with Mike-2. This is where “creating your own reality” doesn’t guarantee or is in accordance with the highest truth.
There has to be an objective reality to align subjective perspectives with the ultimate truth, or we’d all potentially become Charles Manson. Or did I get that wrong?

[stellasky]

[QUOTE=Franco;32823] I like the Charles Manson quote because it is true: "If all is one then nothing is wrong." (Also, nothing is right.) Charles Manson's logic was absolutely correct. And if we are to say that what he did was wrong (and it was) we have to admit that "all is not one."

My mind winces in the same way when I hear people say that truth is relative. It is the same as saying there is no truth.




Mine does too. Truth is only relative because the average person isn’t able to see the whole truth, and why enlightened beings exist, to teach and hopefully guide us in search of it.

In short, as is evidenced in nature, there is up and down, light and dark, male and female, thus both objective and subjective must exist to make the whole or one. If the highest truth is enlightenment, meaning a supreme consciousness reserved only for the “maker” where Charles Manson, although integral to the whole as dark is to light, could never exist, then yes, all is one. In a subjective/objective reality there are levels of consciousness, an order, a chronology, a hierarchy of the ultimate truth. There has to be…

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by stellasky

Are you saying that in SR you can grow wings because you believe you could and even if you did no one would believe you because they're blocked by their own belief systems? And that your own disbelief in finding anyone to believe you've in fact manifested wings blocks it from finding those that would?

It's not a matter of belief systems; it's merely a matter of belief: specifically, yours.

Remember that, in SR, you are responsible for others' beliefs as well, because you created them.