Subjective vs. Objective reality

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

No it is not something like that, when I refer to Consiousness I refer to the Source/All That Is, etc.

Well, your 'Source/All that is, etc.' appears to be referencing the same as my term 'Intelligence' - which is ONE and the same for all.

Our emotions on the other hand, is quite a different story.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Anyone who can face self and the matters under discussion here in the manner he has, well ... despite what he may think, certainly does NOT approach this type of searching, questioning, delving from a stance 'blase'.

Good heavens, do I appear blase about this stuff?

Look, after all the understanding that I've gained through cogitation, insight, and experience, what I have ended up with, is that there is Being, and there is mind. Everything in actuality (material universe) is mind; everything that IS, is Being. This doesn't mean I "know everything". Rather, it means that of myself, I can know nothing.

I know that such may appear as duality, but that's simply not my problem. Oneness is in Being; separation exists in actuality. But, it's not on me to get this point across to anyone. They must gain this understanding themselves, through their own cogitation, insight and experience. They must, as I have been doing (and continue to do), shed themselves of themselves. I can't do that for them.

That said, I simply no longer participate in mutual mental masturbation. I read these subforums, and if I'm impelled to write something, I write something; if not, then I do not. But getting into debates on the nature of reality is counterproductive to me, anymore, as I have come to see it as ego attacking narcissistic ego, and so you'll forgive me if I refrain from such discussions. It doesn't mean that I don't have an ego, nor that I'm ignoring it. But, it's one thing to ignore the ego (read: mind), and it's another thing to glorify it; it's one thing to have a thought, and it's another to entertain it.

I'll let you all draw your own conclusions from that.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Good heavens, do I appear blase about this stuff?

You missed my point - I was saying that in my opinion, you are NOT nearly so blase as you might be trying to present. On the other hand, I may have missed your point for which I offer my regrets in advance.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

But, it's one thing to ignore the ego (read: mind), and it's another thing to glorify it; it's one thing to have a thought, and it's another to entertain it.

Are you saying the ego is the mind?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Are you saying the ego is the mind?

No. Mind is the seat of the ego, but not all mind is ego.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

No. Mind is the seat of the ego, but not all mind is ego.

So how would you differentiate one mind from the other?

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

So how would you differentiate one mind from the other?

Ego is what identifies itself as "Apopohis Reject". It seats in your mind because its your mind which allow ego to exist.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

Ego is what identifies itself as "Apopohis Reject". It seats in your mind because its your mind which allow ego to exist.

Your mind allows ego to exist? What does that mean exactly, Luciddd? Can your mind stop ego from existing, or does it have no choice in the matter?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by seeds

That appears to be a personal “subjective” remnant from that "old paradigm" belief that there is a “judgmental Being” watching our every move in order to determine our eternal fates, based on what “He” sees.

From my point of view, nothing could be further from the truth.

The concept of a judgmental CREATOR looking for every chance to blame and exact retribution against man, is a product of personalised disposition (subjectivity), in turn taught to us by our parents, and theirs prior them, rather than anything close to reality.

When one realises the connection that the CREATOR (Intelligence) is in part us, and we are the CREATOR, it becomes obvious that in such a scenario HE would be seeking to blame and punish HIMSELF for HIS failure to behave Himself. Such a perspective not only doesn't make any sense, but is also dependent upon the Creator being separated from His creation akin (the appearance of) a physical child and parents.

Objectively, whether we realise it or not, we are all (especially those involved in delving here), seeking the reality of the objective perspective, after recognising that the subjective perspective is, to say the least inconsistent, not in the least reliable.

Cantando: That's the point - you're still constructing myths and models about who this God might be.

We're all struggling to come to grips with reality, so unless one knows the absolute truth about it, please let's be reasonable. Everyone is more than entitled to place their model on the table, especially if it's a new concept and presents as reasonable.

Surely it's through such weighing in the balances with other POSITIVE mentalities, that gives us the best opportunity to eventually arrive at a consistent conceptualisation. Everyone's contribution therefore would best be received with thanks, especially if not presented in a closed-minded fashion.

Originally Posted by seeds

You are absolutely correct. Our definitions and concepts of God may change, but God doesn’t.

However, let’s view that from a slightly different angle.

Look at how much our myths and models of “material reality” (objective reality) have changed with the ongoing creation and refinement of microscopes and telescopes.

As we are able to look deeper into the microcosmic realms of matter, and further out into the macrocosmic realms of space, nothing of the actual “material” reality ever changes, for it is what it is.

However, “our definitions and concepts” of the material are constantly changing due to our ever perfecting of the “lenses” through-which we view everything.

The same thing applies to the “metaphysical” realms.

Our “spiritual lenses” are becoming clearer and more refined as we evolve.

Therefore, our “myths and models” will also change in direct proportion to that evolution.

Is that not obvious to you?

We need to remember that we can never arrive at a truly clarified image of the spiritual (metaphysical/non-physical) realm, until we remove the glasses from our vision that in effect relates everything back to the physical. I'm referring of course to our subjectivity, yet I'm not referencing the elimination of this as such, even if it were possible, but rather recognising it as our problem, the hurdle needing to be negotiated in order to fully appreciate the spiritual realm - objectively.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

So how would you differentiate one mind from the other?

Different minds are differentiated by ego.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Your mind allows ego to exist? What does that mean exactly, Luciddd? Can your mind stop ego from existing, or does it have no choice in the matter?

I see it as a King/Throne thing--they sorta allow each other to exist. Hence, the mind can't stop the ego, nor can the ego dissolve the mind--otherwise, it cede it's power.

However, since the mind is differentiated from ego, it can be used, I think, to arrive at understanding (Truth, I suppose), which is non-egoic. Such understanding dissolves ego to the point of being fairly if not completely ineffective (though I don't think I, myself, am quite there, yet). When one reaches that point, I would say that such person is "enlightened" (in quotes, because it has such a contentious connotation, anymore).

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

The concept of a judgmental CREATOR looking for every chance to blame and exact retribution against man, is a product of personalised disposition (subjectivity), in turn taught to us by our parents, and theirs prior them, rather than anything close to reality...

You're actually starting to make a bit more sense now (compared with your earlier offerings). Sounds like you've moved on a bit.
Well done, cobber, keep it up!

And I promise not to mention the G word again!

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Cantando

And I promise not to mention the G word again!

Oh, c'mon! Let's push some buttons!

Let's talk about GOD, baby!

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Reefs

Yeah, Morgan Freeman was the best God, ever (even better than George Burns).

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I see it as a King/Throne thing--they sorta allow each other to exist. Hence, the mind can't stop the ego, nor can the ego dissolve the mind--otherwise, it cede it's power.

The viewing of mind and ego as entities, even if we're being sorta kinda metaphorical, creates additional levels of separation instead of breaking them down.

Mind is a thinking process only, and maybe better viewed as a tool that YOU use, or not. When YOU aren't using it, it literally doesn't exist any more than the wind exists when the air isn't moving.

Ego is a particular category of self identifying thoughts that happen in mind. Another category of thoughts might be scientific ideas, and you wouldn't turn that category of thoughts into an entity that negotiates it's position in the mind. What we call ego death is just the realization that this category of thoughts doesn't refer to anything true.

Neither mind nor ego ever become more than ideas.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Cantando

You're actually starting to make a bit more sense now (compared with your earlier offerings). Sounds like you've moved on a bit.
Well done, cobber, keep it up!

And I promise not to mention the G word again!

I won't promise not to use the G word until spongebob promises not to refer to objectivity as HIM.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Neither mind nor ego ever become more than ideas.

... in the mind, not unlike the very ideas you just presented.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

... in the mind, not unlike the very ideas you just presented.

There is no mind any more than there is a God. It's just a way of talking about thought happening, like 'God' is a way of talking about creation happening, and creation is a way of talking about appearances appearing.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

There is no mind any more than there is a God. It's just a way of talking about thought happening, like 'God' is a way of talking about creation happening, and creation is a way of talking about appearances appearing.

I wonder if popo will ever conclude as far as to the A word!

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

There is no mind any more than there is a God.

Then there are no ideas, which contradicts what you just said, about the mind "becoming ideas".

Seriously, this is why I no longer even like to cogitate this stuff.

It's just a way of talking about thought happening, like 'God' is a way of talking about creation happening, and creation is a way of talking about appearances appearing.

Well, forgive me if I don't talk that way.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I won't promise not to use the G word until spongebob promises not to refer to objectivity as HIM.

He's got you on this one, Reject.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Reefs

I wonder if popo will ever conclude as far as to the A word!

The problemo is that the whole 'objectivity' deally might have to go.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

The problemo is that the whole 'objectivity' deally might have to go.

Actually, I can understand the 'objectivity' deally, just as I understand the 'God' deally.

It's funny how so many, if not everyone, seems to go out of their way to negate everyone's understanding, but few seem to make the attempt to draw any parallels with their own understanding.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Then there are no ideas, which contradicts what you just said, about the mind "becoming ideas".

I said 'mind' doesn't become more than an idea. Ideas obviously happen. Where is this mind doohickey?

Seriously, this is why I no longer even like to cogitate this stuff.

These misconceptions are precisely why I was talking about exiting this imaginary Being mode long enough to dissolve them. How can you just BE when you're carrying around the idea that mind and ego are entities that have some sort of symbiotic relationship? Collapse it all into a little greasy spot and you'll have no choice but to just BE.

Well, forgive me if I don't talk that way.

They were just examples.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Actually, I can understand the 'objectivity' deally, just as I understand the 'God' deally.

It's funny how so many, if not everyone, seems to go out of their way to negate everyone's understanding, but few seem to make the attempt to draw any parallels with their own understanding.

My 'understanding' is that it's all imagined. No God, objectivity, mind, ego, here/there, now/then, Consciousness, Awareness or Being. I can do nothing but negate everyone's understanding. Spongebob would like for all of us to put our minds together and come up with a workable model of reality, but as you say, it all just IS. However, it's not enough to just say it or try to be it. Ignoring the cup and pretending it isn't full of tea doesn't mean it's empty.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I can do nothing but negate everyone's understanding.

What is the purpose of negating everyone's understanding?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Angela

What is the purpose of negating everyone's understanding?

Because the truth is that nothing you can think is ultimately true, and the truth shall set you free. All we do is bother ourselves with our own imaginings. That's all that's going on here. That's the reason for all the suffering of humanity.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Because the truth is that nothing you can think is ultimately true, and the truth shall set you free. All we do is bother ourselves with our own imaginings. That's all that's going on here. That's the reason for all the suffering of humanity.

Do you mean that your purpose in negating other people's understanding is to set them free and alleviate their suffering? (and/or to set yourself free and alleviate your own suffering?)

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Angela

Do you mean that your purpose in negating other people's understanding is to set them free and alleviate their suffering? (and/or to set yourself free and alleviate your own suffering?)

What's the difference?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

What's the difference?

Perhaps none, so please allow me to rephrase the question: did you mean that your purpose in negating other people's understanding to set people free and to alleviate suffering?