Subjective vs. Objective reality

[seeds]

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.

Did you ever consider that your "Concept City" is in fact just a tiny "hamlet" way outside the border of a vast "metropolis" that you fail to reach.

Originally Posted by Cantando

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!

It seems that when the vast majority of humans hear the word "God" mentioned, then all of their preconceived notions regarding that word, floods their field of vision, completely obscuring any fresh and alternate way of seeing what the word actually denotes.

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

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...

Thank you Apopohis Reject, I assure you the feeling is mutual.


seeds

[Apopohis Reject]

I really see no off-topic focus at all, apart perhaps my needing to neuter my table.

Surely there may appear for some to be off-topic issues, yet imagine I were to slip into my car for a drive to grandmas house on a pleasant day full of possibilities....

Now whilst on this drive, I come across a temporary set-up on the side of the road where I could procure a few flowers for grandma, and make decision to pull over, engage in a little chit-chat and purchase a few geraniums.

Well ... would you call this an off-topic excursion, or a laconic side-issue providing an overall, more rewarding experience for all?

[Arcanum]

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.

If light filling the room fulfills your qualifications for "objective", then so do the atomic clocks that 'objectively' keep track of time for us in spite of our differing subjective sense.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

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

I think I just came up with an example of how this plays out for us, let me see....

Imagine a child, say a one year old, jumping out of a bath and while still wet and completely naked, runs squealing around the house waving his hands and expressing his joy at being alive, free, open to the enormous possibilities the universe is ready and willing to afford his life experience. It matters not if there be a hundred strangers in the house all laughing at the beautiful sight before them.

Now fast forward a few years and the story is very likely quite different. Fast forward some more and it is different again. So what is happening within this child that is changing his outward joy and freedom?

I would argue that at first he revelled in a predominantly objective perspective, which had him relating to himself and his wider surroundings as being in harmony, perhaps as one, fear is a virtual unknown for him. But as he grows, a subjectivity creeps into his awareness. He becomes increasingly aware of himself as his focus turns inward and a fear towards looking outward envelops his consciousness.

Yet his original exciting and promising objectivity has not evaporated as it might seem, for it is, remains the very life within him, but it has become overwhelmed, deluged by his now predominant subjectivity.

For another peek into the infinite possibilities within all of us, I'm reminded of the amazing examples we have in what is termed 'savant syndrome', such as; The boy who sees without eyes, Kim, the original Rainman, The Living Camera and Alonzo Clements - amazing artist.

Added to this, I recall some years ago, watching a documentary about a young savant man who had never been to Italy, much less a particular town, such as Palermo, yet was able to produce highly detailed paintings of this city from all kinds of vantage points around the place. The producers of this doco spent weeks locating all the views in order to check how close the drawings were to reality. Once they had, they were amazed to find that the actual views of the town were virtually perfectly reproduced in the paintings.

Scientists admit struggling to appreciate what is happening in such instances and come up with all kinds of explanations as to what 'might' be going on. However I have an interpretation that I doubt they have yet imagined, which has to do with objective vs subjective perception.

In my opinion these savant geniuses with their brain damage, are displaying a slight level of removal of their brain's requirement to be subjectively focused in one particular aspect. Once such impediment is slightly removed even in one particular section, the OBJECTIVE possibilities relating to that section are somewhat (I doubt totally) released. So within such evidence, I'm convinced we are witnessing the kind of possibilities that will open to our attention with the reduction (actually reconfiguration) of our highly limiting subjective perception.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

If light filling the room fulfills your qualifications for "objective", then so do the atomic clocks that 'objectively' keep track of time for us in spite of our differing subjective sense.

The flaw in that observation is the concept of time itself.

I highly doubt that anyone can objectively keep track of something that is entirely subjective, an illusion, a man-made construct which doesn't exist outside our subjectivity. If interested, in a previous post on another thread, I explore and (hopefully) explain just why time is an illusion, and how it needs to be recognised, as a part of this unveiling.

[Apopohis Reject]

Objectively, those 'atomic clocks' are mechanations that push, rotate two or three arms at a reasonably constant pace around a povitoal point.

povitoal? I mean of course; pivotal point.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

The flaw in that observation is the concept of time itself.

I highly doubt that anyone can objectively keep track of something that is entirely subjective, an illusion, a man-made construct which doesn't exist outside our subjectivity. If interested, in a previous post on another thread, I explore and (hopefully) explain just why time is an illusion, and how it needs to be recognised, as a part of this unveiling.

And yet you assume that light DOES exist outside of our subjectivity.

[Luciddd]

I think onle Pure Consiousness (Consiousness, with capital C) is objective, because only that stand alone, everything else is a mental construct that can be as easily changed and it is indeed always changed even if no one forces it to.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

I think onle Pure Consiousness (Consiousness, with capital C) is objective, because only that stand alone, everything else is a mental construct that can be as easily changed and it is indeed always changed even if no one forces it to.

Does Consciousness have it's own perspective?

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Does Consciousness have it's own perspective?

Do you mean personality? No, I dont think so, at least not as us.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

And yet you assume that light DOES exist outside of our subjectivity.

Well yes I do, for light doesn't in the least depend of my feelings towards it for relevance.

Yet at the same time, light is a very interesting concept to consider - IMO. In light, I reason we have the connection between the objective and subjective realms, which would be indicative that light may well be the only thing that belongs in both spheres of our mind, indeed all spheres of our being, and yes even on the wider scale - of the universe.

At the core of this, is that light is the basic building block within all matter, and as (alternatively termed) the electro-magnetic spectrum, also the medium between INTELLIGENCE and all matter. In other words, light is both at the same time; spiritual (non-physical) and physical - indeed the medium.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

Do you mean personality? No, I dont think so, at least not as us.

Well, not necessarily personality, but a unique experience. Without an experience there is no perspective. If there IS an experience, it must be both exclusionary and linearly coherent. I don't know how it can be a perspective otherwise.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Well yes I do, for light doesn't in the least depend of my feelings towards it for relevance.

Yet at the same time, light is a very interesting concept to consider - IMO. In light, I reason we have the connection between the objective and subjective realms, which would be indicative that light may well be the only thing that belongs in both spheres of our mind, indeed all spheres of our being, and yes even on the wider scale - of the universe.

At the core of this, is that light is the basic building block within all matter, and as (alternatively termed) the electro-magnetic spectrum, also the medium between INTELLIGENCE and all matter. In other words, light is both at the same time; spiritual (non-physical) and physical - indeed the medium.

You have a very active imagination, Spongebob.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I think I just came up with an example of how this plays out for us, let me see....

Imagine a child, say a one year old, jumping out of a bath and while still wet and completely naked, runs squealing around the house waving his hands and expressing his joy at being alive, free, open to the enormous possibilities the universe is ready and willing to afford his life experience. It matters not if there be a hundred strangers in the house all laughing at the beautiful sight before them.

Now fast forward a few years and the story is very likely quite different. Fast forward some more and it is different again. So what is happening within this child that is changing his outward joy and freedom?

I would argue that at first he revelled in a predominantly objective perspective, which had him relating to himself and his wider surroundings as being in harmony, perhaps as one, fear is a virtual unknown for him. But as he grows, a subjectivity creeps into his awareness. He becomes increasingly aware of himself as his focus turns inward and a fear towards looking outward envelops his consciousness.

Yet his original exciting and promising objectivity has not evaporated as it might seem, for it is, remains the very life within him, but it has become overwhelmed, deluged by his now predominant subjectivity.

For another peek into the infinite possibilities within all of us, I'm reminded of the amazing examples we have in what is termed 'savant syndrome', such as; The boy who sees without eyes, Kim, the original Rainman, The Living Camera and Alonzo Clements - amazing artist.

Added to this, I recall some years ago, watching a documentary about a young savant man who had never been to Italy, much less a particular town, such as Palermo, yet was able to produce highly detailed paintings of this city from all kinds of vantage points around the place. The producers of this doco spent weeks locating all the views in order to check how close the drawings were to reality. Once they had, they were amazed to find that the actual views of the town were virtually perfectly reproduced in the paintings.

Scientists admit struggling to appreciate what is happening in such instances and come up with all kinds of explanations as to what 'might' be going on. However I have an interpretation that I doubt they have yet imagined, which has to do with objective vs subjective perception.

In my opinion these savant geniuses with their brain damage, are displaying a slight level of removal of their brain's requirement to be subjectively focused in one particular aspect. Once such impediment is slightly removed even in one particular section, the OBJECTIVE possibilities relating to that section are somewhat (I doubt totally) released. So within such evidence, I'm convinced we are witnessing the kind of possibilities that will open to our attention with the reduction (actually reconfiguration) of our highly limiting subjective perception.

I think you raise a valid and very interesting point here, Reject, with the one-year-old running around naked, and his eventual loss of such freedom as an adult. However, his perception, whether at one or twenty-one or fifty-one, can only ever be subjective, whether he (or you) likes it or not.

Now, I think I understand what you're trying to point to, in regards to the limitations of subjective perception, but as long we exist as humans with senses, we are limited to a subjective experience. This is not to say that I think we lack the capacity to, perhaps, tap into (what I think you're calling) the Objective, but such can only be experienced and subsequently explained subjectively. Even the one-year-old experiences running around in naked freedom subjectively, though the naked freedom he experiences is what you might call Objectivity itself.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

You have a very active imagination, Spongebob.

I doubt it to be imagination exactly, yet I’m not sure to what you refer. However if it be the observation about light being the basic building block within all matter, well Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and the most famous equation in science which emerged from it - E=mc2, is all about this dynamic.

Furthermore when man finally split the atom, the scientists knew what to expect because of Mr. Einstein, his celebrated theory and equation. They knew enormous amounts of light were going to be released, and that is precisely what eventuated then, and ever since relative to such reactions.

The process involved in these reactions is termed fission, which is effectively a reversal of a previous process of 'fusion', being fundamental to all matter.

More interestingly still, this fusion is an ongoing process, under enormous and constant pressure at the core of the planet Earth, and in turn produces molten rock. Indeed the same molten rock that under increasing pressure, eventually makes it’s way upward to be vented onto the surface of the planet via such as volcanoes. After hardening, it soon begins to break down towards in turn being transformed in the cycle of life, into plants, trees, animals and humans and everything else of which we experience.

So indeed light is the medium between the spiritual (non-physical) and the physical.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I think you raise a valid and very interesting point here, Reject, with the one-year-old running around naked, and his eventual loss of such freedom as an adult. However, his perception, whether at one or twenty-one or fifty-one, can only ever be subjective, whether he (or you) likes it or not.

Then why do we all have a divided brain? The answer has to do with our dual perception of our existence - objective and subjective.

Originally Posted by Beingist

Now, I think I understand what you're trying to point to, in regards to the limitations of subjective perception, but as long we exist as humans with senses, we are limited to a subjective experience.

I agree, subjectivity is exceptionally limiting indeed.

Originally Posted by Beingist

This is not to say that I think we lack the capacity to, perhaps, tap into (what I think you're calling) the Objective, but such can only be experienced and subsequently explained subjectively. Even the one-year-old experiences running around in naked freedom subjectively, though the naked freedom he experiences is what you might call Objectivity itself.

While I don't disagree with your words, I would say the child enjoys a far greater level of objectivity, objectively speaking. But yes, there will necessarily already be some subjectivity there, growing into the power it will eventually become and progressively limiting his experience.

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Well, not necessarily personality, but a unique experience. Without an experience there is no perspective. If there IS an experience, it must be both exclusionary and linearly coherent. I don't know how it can be a perspective otherwise.

An experience.... could be. I think Consiousness, with capitals, is beyond of what you would call an experience. All That Is, Source, etc.

I would define Consiousness as...... I cant, I cant even define it.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

An experience.... could be. I think Consiousness, with capitals, is beyond of what you would call an experience. All That Is, Source, etc.

I would define Consiousness as...... I cant, I cant even define it.

I hope the folllowing helps.

Consciousness, put in simpler terms, is our awareness. Awareness is dependent upon two inputs into it - our emotions and Intelligence.

Perhaps look at it this way; imagine if you will a drink of water. Now in order to experience it as fully as possible, you require BOTH an Intelligent awareness that is water, but also an emotional awareness that you WANT to experience it. Until these two awarenesses come together, it will (objectively) remain a drink of water, but you will not (subjectively) experience it.

Therefore consciousness is the point of confluence between our emotions and Intelligence.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Then why do we all have a divided brain? The answer has to do with our dual perception of our existence - objective and subjective.

Well, perhaps such an answer is something you've reached in your own subjective experience.

Otherwise, I don't know why we have a divided brain, and frankly, I really don't care. I stopped asking "why?" some time ago, and I think that not only is it presumptuous to believe that we have divided brains because of this "dual perception" thing, but I also think it relies on "actuality" (i.e., material experience) in the attempt to explain a perception of a non-material Reality (i.e., Being), which, in the end, really can't be explained in any way, shape, or form except through negation (i.e., what it is not).

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

I would define Consiousness as...... I cant, I cant even define it.

This may sound weird, but this tells me that Luciddd likely understands exactly what Consciousness is.

To him, it's Consciousness; to me, it's Reality; to Reject, it's Objectivity. That's my take on all this.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

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's precisely what Schopenhauer tried to do - and we know how that ended...

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

An experience.... could be. I think Consiousness, with capitals, is beyond of what you would call an experience. All That Is, Source, etc.

I would define Consiousness as...... I cant, I cant even define it.

I agree. Actually, I would call it a concept to refer to the spontaneous arising of appearances, such that Consciousness is literally it's content (thingness). As such, there isn't 'a Consciousness'.

In any event, if there is no experience associated with Consciousness itself, what is this objective perspective that's talked about, and what would that even look like?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Well, perhaps such an answer is something you've reached in your own subjective experience.

Otherwise, I don't know why we have a divided brain, and frankly, I really don't care. I stopped asking "why?" some time ago, and I think that not only is it presumptuous to believe that we have divided brains because of this "dual perception" thing, but I also think it relies on "actuality" (i.e., material experience) in the attempt to explain a perception of a non-material Reality (i.e., Being), which, in the end, really can't be explained in any way, shape, or form except through negation (i.e., what it is not).

You may well have stopped asking, yet there are others still doing so, such as Dr. Iain McGilchrist who wrote a very interesting book "The divided Brain".

Perhaps you might become interested agin, huh?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

This may sound weird, but this tells me that Luciddd likely understands exactly what Consciousness is.

To him, it's Consciousness; to me, it's Reality; to Reject, it's Objectivity. That's my take on all this.

It seems to me you have this idea that not understanding is more correct than understanding, and so the less one claims to understand, the more they 'get it'.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

You may well have stopped asking, yet there are others still doing so, such as Dr. Iain McGilchrist who wrote a very interesting book "The divided Brain".

Perhaps you might become interested agin, huh?

Well, of course, one never knows, but it's not likely. tbh, I currently have no interest whatsoever in brains.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

It seems to me you have this idea that not understanding is more correct than understanding, and so the less one claims to understand, the more they 'get it'.

Sorry you think that, Arc.

No, to me, it's more that I'm more likely to trust that someone really understands something because they admit that they're not able to explain or define what they understand. Words really often fail miserably to explain some of the things that we discuss in this subforum.

Otherwise, nothing is more or less "correct" than anything else.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Then why do we all have a divided brain?

Because we like division.

Depending how you wish to conceptualise it, brains can be divided into various different numbers of parts.

Two parts - "Left brain, Right brain"

Three parts - forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain (the prosencephalon, mesencephalon, and rhombencephalon, respectively)

Four parts - frontal lobe, temporal lobe. occipital lobe, parietal lobe

Five parts - Brain stem, frontal lobe, temporal lobe. occipital lobe, parietal lobe.

No need to be dualistic, we can also be trilistic, quadrilistic etc ...

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Because we like division.

Depending how you wish to conceptualise it, brains can be divided into various different numbers of parts.

Two parts - "Left brain, Right brain"

Three parts - forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain (the prosencephalon, mesencephalon, and rhombencephalon, respectively)

Four parts - frontal lobe, temporal lobe. occipital lobe, parietal lobe

Five parts - Brain stem, frontal lobe, temporal lobe. occipital lobe, parietal lobe.

No need to be dualistic, we can also be trilistic, quadrilistic etc ...

And let's not forget about duality, triality, quadrality ....

[Reefs]

triality

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Reefs

triality

Yin, Yang, and ... Yung?