Subjective vs. Objective reality

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Have you checked your dining table for testicles?

*waits for ALG's assertion that testicles are not a qualification for maleness*

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

At this point it appears the more words, the less understanding. So perhaps I'll leave it right there for a while and as I explore more aspects of this, it will become clearer to both of us.

Regrets if that sounds insufficient right now.

That's fine. Concise is good.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Oh yes, but where's your focus? On your objective or subjective perception?

On the other hand then, you might ask, re. my posts; to what extent is my subjectivity colouring the content shared; necessarily distorting, as it does; my ability to express the details objectively?

Then that reference point continues up the line, you see? For if you were putting pressure on my to 'get it right', this would introduce a greater level of subjectivity into my efforts of expression, and so on. The more emotional pressure/need/demand in, the greater the subjectivity out.

No, I think you're just putting way too much effort into your explanation.



At this point, I'm just going to settle on the notion that my understanding of Reality is your understanding of "objective reality"; and that my understanding of Actuality is your understanding of "subjective reality". That's good enough for now.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Your 'more powerful examples' are in fact looking more insipid as we go.

As noted previously; NONE of this is about sex, your body image or stereotypes, but rather about the cycle of life. Furthermore, sometimes your sexual prowess/urges/focus/mindset might not help a great deal, so it perhaps may be better to employ a little grey matter here in the stead of your sexual penchant.

When we place a mustard seed into the (female) womb of the earth, there is no penis, testicles, hairy chest, deep voice, testosterone or any muscles to speak of apparent - you know .... unlike your male-egoic self for instance.

That does not suggest however; a licence for you to condemn.

I always talk about planting Mr Seed in Mrs Earth. I don't see the problem.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I had my table castrated years ago for trying to hump it up with the lounge suite.

Well, as unfortunate at it is, there's really no option in that case, eh? Dinner time becomes an absolute disaster!

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

*waits for ALG's assertion that testicles are not a qualification for maleness*

It would be pretty hard evidence in favor, though.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

My dear Reefs, 'God' is a mythical pagan deity based upon another, from the Germanic region of around 800 years ago, who in turn was named 'Gott'; German for 'good'. However he is certainly NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN who I've been referencing.

Moreover neither 'Gott' nor 'God' ever existed in any reality whatsoever, outside the SUBJECTIVE imaginations of some religious pagan Germans, and religious pagan Christians.

On the other hand, I've not been referencing any subjective or mythical anything, but rather a, no THE patent CREATOR; the OBJECTIVE INTELLIGENCE within us all. One would hope you can now see the difference, for in actuality it's glaringly obvious.

The ridiculousness is you ascribing it a gender and not the name you call it. Stop beating around the bush and going off on tangents.

The name you give it doesn't matter, you use your OBJECTIVE INTELLIGENCE in the same sense as God is usually used.

It doesn't change the fact that you ascribe it a certain gender, but that point got lost in your war of semantics again. You see, every time someone wants to cut through your bogus concepts you start smoking your semantics ciggies in hope no one will see the flaws in your logic.

Your OBEJCTIVE INTELLIGENCE is a concept only and therefore pure imagination as well. It's actually glaringly obvious that besides playing hide and seek via semantics you have nothing to offer.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Yes, I agree with one post and then disagree with another. It's like two dancers doing a cosmic dance. Hehe. They're interdependent because what I agree with only has meaning as 'agreeable' because I've found something else I disagree with, which I must do or neither has any meaning. I can't focus just on what I agree with or it would create a cosmic imbalance. This continuous transformation from posts I agree with to posts I disagree with perpetuates the universe, or in this case the spiritual circus...
...
That's what Yin/Yang really means. Do you agree or disagree?

Yes, I agree. I was going to say that a post can be neutral, but someone may reply and say , 'No, it can't'.

If there is a perception of opposites, then we are using dualistic thinking: we have taken the whole and imagined splitting it.

The 'union' of the two dancers occurs when we perceive reality directly. But, they were never really separated.

In this time continuum, they appeared to be two, got together, separated again, etc.

Yin Yang is the concept that points to that illusive intertwining, fluctuating and self-balancing of apparently opposing forces in perceived reality, which we call the universe.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Yes, I agree. I was going to say that a post can be neutral, but someone may reply and say , 'No, it can't'.

If there is a perception of opposites, then we are using dualistic thinking: we have taken the whole and imagined splitting it.

The 'union' of the two dancers occurs when we perceive reality directly. But, they were never really separated.

In this time continuum, they appeared to be two, got together, separated again, etc.

Yin Yang is the concept that points to that illusive intertwining, fluctuating and self-balancing of apparently opposing forces in perceived reality, which we call the universe.

Right, but the point is it's just imagination. Black/white, up/down, here/there, past/future, subjective/objective, creator/created are all ideas that become perceived in some way. The opposing forces don't exist until they are imagined into apparent existence, which is necessary for the movement of life to happen at all.

They don't actually get together, they're just seen as two sides of the same imaginary coin.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

And therein, with a caveat or two, sits the essence of what I've been exploring.

Surely it seems to make no sense that these two pre-eminent inputs into the inner 'me' in all of us, should be in opposition, however that is precisely the result of the choice of our ancestor 'Adam'.
...

AR, at last, you have clearly stated your beliefs, which many of us here already subscribe to.

You have now plainly described what all religions and spiritual teachings have been telling us for centuries:

We were once perfect - united with the Godhead/All That Is, dwelling happily in Eden/Nirvana.

Then we experienced the Fall and descended into Matter/Duality or, for you, Subjective Perception.

Now, we can regain our true selves (born again in the spirit, perhaps) by getting on the path of humility, prayer, effort, being compassionate, letting go of the old self/ego, etc.

This journey may last a second (sudden enlightenment) or many aeons (karmic rebirth). Of course, there is going to be massive change in perception.

You may call it a change from Subjective to Objective, but they are just your labels. I would personally call it a rebirth in the spirit.

It's all very standard stuff.

Why didn't you just state this at the beginning?

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Right, but the point is it's just imagination. Black/white, up/down, here/there, past/future, subjective/objective, creator/created are all ideas that become perceived in some way. The opposing forces don't exist until they are imagined into apparent existence, which is necessary for the movement of life to happen at all.

They don't actually get together, they're just seen as two sides of the same imaginary coin.

Agreed.

I was just replying to AR in kind (as a temporary expedient), when he spoke in Boolean, 2-state terms about male/female, black/white, on/off, etc.

Yes, by imagining the dance, the male/yin and female/yang dancers appear and do their stuff.

And yet, there is a relative reality to this (neither existing nor non-existing), and if we differentiate between the relative and the absolute we may fall into the dualistic trap.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Why didn't you just state this at the beginning?

He couldn't find his notes.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Reefs

He couldn't find his notes.

What? OBJECTIVE INTELLIGENCE couldn't find his notes?

I bet his rolling-pin wielding, opposing partner, EMOTIONS would have spotted them straight away:

They're under yer bleeding' nose, yer great wazzak!

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

When we place a mustard seed into the (female) womb of the earth,

Why is the earth "female"? Why is it not "male"?

Please don't tell me it's because it has no penis. I will tell you that it doesn't have a vagina either.

Or a womb.

Also, metaphorically, you are associating the seed ("male") with the sperm cell. This isn't right. If you understand how plants reproduce, you would know that in this analogy, the seed should be likened to a foetus (which can be either male OR female).

And to further extend the analogy in a logical manner, impregnation should be likened to the process of pollination.

Of course, this is mostly irrelevant to many gardeners, because most of us (I am a keen gardener) find it tedious to grow plants from seed. Instead we use stem cuttings etc.

[Reefs]

Strange indeed. Maybe Popo is open to the possibility that earth is male and seeds female? Would that settle your dispute?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Right, but the point is it's just imagination. Black/white, up/down, here/there, past/future, subjective/objective, creator/created are all ideas that become perceived in some way. The opposing forces don't exist until they are imagined into apparent existence, which is necessary for the movement of life to happen at all.

They don't actually get together, they're just seen as two sides of the same imaginary coin.

I think we're confusing things and/or conflating concepts here a little. For instance on/off , subjective/objective and past/future are all entirely different concepts.

When I flick a light switch, do I merely imagine the room being filled with light or has my action made some verifiable change? I'd argue it has wrought an objective change which goes beyond my subjective perspective. So both our objective and subjective perceptions are invoked here.

On the other hand, past/future do not apprear to be separated from anything other than a subjective perception. Objectively they are the one 'eternity', yet our positioning in it splits it for our subjective purposes only.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I think we're confusing things and/or conflating concepts here a little. For instance on/off , subjective/objective and past/future are all entirely different concepts.

When I flick a light switch, do I merely imagine the room being filled with light or has my action made some verifiable change? I'd argue it has wrought an objective change which goes beyond my subjective perspective. So both our objective and subjective perceptions are invoked here.

On the other hand, past/future do not apprear to be separated from anything other than a subjective perception. Objectively they are the one 'eternity', yet our positioning in it splits it for our subjective purposes only.

That's only true when you have a thinking melon, a personal point of view. Seen from prior to mind, from the impersonal point of view, your beloved concepts are just hot air balloons clouding the sun.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Why is the earth "female"? Why is it not "male"?

Also, metaphorically, you are associating the seed ("male") with the sperm cell. This isn't right. If you understand how plants reproduce, you would know that in this analogy, the seed should be likened to a foetus (which can be either male OR female).

Is the sperm cell a fetus the second it emerges into the female womb? Of course not, for a coming together is required first.

Once this eventuates, can we then call it a fetus? Perhaps, but I would argue not quite yet, but rather we don't have a fetus until the cells commence their a-splitting process towards eventually becoming the fullness of the concept inside the seed.

So maybe in your imagination, it might be a little more genuine to argue the seed becoming a 'fetus' once it sprouts, or perhaps just prior - yet certainly post the inherent warmth and moisture supply of the womb has commenced the natural process of unleashing the secrets locked inside the sperm/seed.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

And to further extend the analogy in a logical manner, impregnation should be likened to the process of pollination.

I'm not seeing the point.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Reefs

That's only true when you have a thinking melon, a personal point of view. Seen from prior to mind, from the impersonal point of view, your beloved concepts are just hot air balloons clouding the sun.

Perhaps that's what I'm arguing; our subjective perception/s are just like hot air balloons clouding the sun, yet as Arc noted; it is these hot air balloons 'that are necessary for the movement of life to happen at all' - from a human creation perspective at least.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Perhaps that's what I'm arguing; our subjective perception/s are just like hot air balloons clouding the sun, yet as Arc noted; it is these hot air balloons 'that are necessary for the movement of life to happen at all' - from a human creation perspective at least.

That's the point where we part. Your thinking melon is the head you put on your already existing head. It's not necessary at all. But doesn't do any harm either. Just looks strange.

Isn't it already bed time in Australia?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Cantando

AR, at last, you have clearly stated your beliefs, which many of us here already subscribe to.

You have now plainly described what all religions and spiritual teachings have been telling us for centuries:

We were once perfect - united with the Godhead/All That Is, dwelling happily in Eden/Nirvana.

Then we experienced the Fall and descended into Matter/Duality or, for you, Subjective Perception.

Now, we can regain our true selves (born again in the spirit, perhaps) by getting on the path of humility, prayer, effort, being compassionate, letting go of the old self/ego, etc.

This journey may last a second (sudden enlightenment) or many aeons (karmic rebirth). Of course, there is going to be massive change in perception.

You may call it a change from Subjective to Objective, but they are just your labels. I would personally call it a rebirth in the spirit.

It's all very standard stuff.

Why didn't you just state this at the beginning?

It may well be 'very standard stuff' from yours, yet I am looking at it from another perspective - mine. So whilst from the beginning I've recognised resonance with observations posted by others, for mine they were missing one or two details. So as I didn't have time nor inclination to venture into deep investigations per such as 'karmic rebirth', 'sudden enlightenment' and such, nor does everyone share identical interpretations of existence, therefore I necessarily needed to explore from my perspective.

In any case, the conclusions to which I will eventually arrive in this, will be to some degree different to yours I expect, even though you perhaps might again argue differently.

Truly, I see no reason at all for fragmentation - especially with minds seeking the same result (even if they don't realise it), so if you can again show me where I'm incorrectly perceiving such, I will have no issue whatsoever with again thanking you.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Reefs

That's the point where we part. Your thinking melon is the head you put on your already existing head. It's not necessary at all. But doesn't do any harm either. Just looks strange.

So you see fragmentation where I see little (at worst). It's kinda the opposite to my previous post, huh?

Originally Posted by Reefs

Isn't it already bed time in Australia?

2:40am in fact. Why, do you wish me to take a rest now???

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

In any case, the conclusions to which I will eventually arrive in this, will be to some degree different to yours I expect, even though you perhaps might again argue differently.

I bet sooner or later you will come to the same conclusion everyone else does who has the guts to go the spiritual path straight to the dire end. And like everybody else who reached the end of the conceptual rope you will be mightily disappointed and bored like never before because there are no new challenges (just ask Moriarty).

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

So you see fragmentation where I see little (at worst). It's kinda the opposite to my previous post, huh?

What do you mean with fragmentation?

2:40am in fact. Why, do you wish me to take a rest now???

Don't wanna spoil your fun!

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

It may well be 'very standard stuff' from yours, yet I am looking at it from another perspective - mine. So whilst from the beginning I've recognised resonance with observations posted by others, for mine they were missing one or two details. So as I didn't have time nor inclination to venture into deep investigations per such as 'karmic rebirth', 'sudden enlightenment' and such, nor does everyone share identical interpretations of existence, therefore I necessarily needed to explore from my perspective.

In any case, the conclusions to which I will eventually arrive in this, will be to some degree different to yours I expect, even though you perhaps might again argue differently.

Truly, I see no reason at all for fragmentation - especially with minds seeking the same result (even if they don't realise it), so if you can again show me where I'm incorrectly perceiving such, I will have no issue whatsoever with again thanking you.

Yes, there is a lot of commonality between us and some differences. One difference is that I am not using my mind to seek a result. Quite the opposite, in fact. I've tried that many times in the past and it led to one place: Concept City.

I hope that one of the conclusions you arrive at is not going to be displayed here as a giant, objective, all-seeing, all-intelligent eye (in the style of Seeds) watching our every move!

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Reefs

I bet sooner or later you will come to the same conclusion everyone else does who has the guts to go the spiritual path straight to the dire end. And like everybody else who reached the end of the conceptual rope you will be mightily disappointed.

LOL Well Reefs, I have to admit that I didn't see the end of that a-coming, nor was I disappointed in the slightest.

But what I'm expecting is truly astounding, yet thus far I've merely caught a glimps of it, so it will not be so easy at this juncture to define, yet if I may try....

I've arrived at the conclusion that once we've recognised the intrinsic dichotomy related to the imbalance in our default spiritual constitution, generating as it does the disconnect and dissonance within us and by extension; our world, we arrive at the place of wondering why in the world should such an imbalance be at all?

As previously noted; I believe it should not, perhaps apart from one perspective: When Adam 'sinned'; being a term denoting his choice for an alternative (as far as he was concerned) focus, to serve his emotions (subjectivity) rather than his Intelligence (objectivity), he effectively set in place a nature for us ever since, where we are necessarily required to live the alternative life of his choice, yes even with all it's negativity/separation/fear/anger/death issues.

We surely, implicitly now appreciate (Adam's) alternative and the deep ructions, disease and severe pain in our being it delivers, for it is indeed become our standard. So when we effectively make the cerebral connection that there is an alternative to our standard - Adam's original, and then take a peek into it; being where I stand right now; well, let's just say the possiblitites are infinite, which is clearly not so easy an explanation from our subjectivity.

But then we recognise the effective possibility of personally stepping across the threshold into that infinitely more advanced way of being, into that eternity of the universal INTELLIGENCE, and the possibilities begin to open up to say the least; exponentially.

Are we to take that giant step however? Can we plunge headfirst into a mighty realm that will certainly be anything but 'mightily dissapointing'?

Well I will suggest this to you; when you catch even a fleeting glimpse of what's truly, ultimately available, you are surely left with no doubting your need to experience it - yes even at the expense of everything we rely upon right now for our 'existence' as is. This indeed is the place where I presently stand, ready to take that step and experience that expanse of the universe for the first time.

The process for this to eventuate, will be about reversing the intrinsic default setting from a slavery to the inherent emotions - to a servitude towards THE universal INTELLIGENCE. That is the very choice - indeed the repealing of that of Adam.

[Luciddd]

Well this discussion went from OR and SR and turned into a theology debate.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Yes, there is a lot of commonality between us and some differences. One difference is that I am not using my mind to seek a result. Quite the opposite, in fact. I've tried that many times in the past and it led to one place: Concept City.

I hope that one of the conclusions you arrive at is not going to be displayed here as a giant, objective, all-seeing, all-intelligent eye (in the style of Seeds) watching our every move!

Well I've had little problem with seeds' observations thus far, and must say nor do I expect to have any significant ones in the future. On the contrary; I'm excited with what he is bringing to the table of late - being of which all I can speak.

I don't quite relate to an 'eye watching our every move' as such, yet 'all-Intelligent and all-seeing' pretty much defines my 'UNIVERSAL INTELLIGENCE'. The difference is that I define this INTELLIGENCE as the eternal power source that underpins the universe, is omnipotent and omniscient; therefore we exist entirely within this INTELLIGENCE, and ultimately - ARE this INTELLIGENCE.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

Well this discussion went from OR and SR and turned into a theology debate.

From my perspective, it has now entered into the dismantling of theology, which was in effect the very process from the beginning.

Surely our mentality of 2011 has been established, coagulated and on the back of some wondrous, nebulous myths of many thousands of years of theological dreaming. Subsequently, we have been necessarily born into the atmosphere in which our parents and theirs prior them existed, with only a few tinkerings around the edges of late.

People still believe in some variety of superdaddy in the clouds, and a fiery furnace for those who don't please him, and thousands of other theological imaginings, such as lying to children about jolly blokes in a red suits at 'Christmas' time, being a darn good thing to do. This is all surely according the disease.

Yet there remains a reality, and our perception of that reality. So what we are doing here, is dismantling all that delusion, such as largely defines our perceptions/general mentality, and therefore getting back to basics; to reality - as best we can.

I might advise then, that we'd be better off ignoring a knee-jerk reaction, our perhaps normal tendency to relate to references such as 'Adam', 'sin', 'Garden of Eden' and the like as theological (religious), and rather, relate to this as man's way of explaining the origins of our condition, with particular attention towards the healing of the inherent chronic disease created within it.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Maybe I'll start a thread on it so that we don't get arrested by the off-topic police.