Subjective vs. Objective reality

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Angela

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?

I don't have a purpose beyond just talking about what I love. I can't set anybody free.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I don't have a purpose beyond just talking about what I love. I can't set anybody free.

Good thing we're on a personal development site. Time to build up your confidence so you stop doubting your ability to set people free.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

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

So ideas happen in, with, or by something that doesn't exist? Where's our idea doohickey?

Do you see what I'm driving at, Arcane one? I could go on forever with questions such as these, and neither one of us will get anywhere, because it's all just mental masturbation. Thinkingness. You can have it, I say. I would prefer to simply BE, and view thought for what it is--just thought.

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, perhaps you might think that Being is rather "imaginary Being mode", but I do not. Rather, I don't think anything or anyone has any choice but to just BE, in the end. Until then, if people prefer to get in their own way by "carrying" anything "around", that's their choice.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I don't have a purpose beyond just talking about what I love. I can't set anybody free.

Do you mean to just talk about what you love, or also to communicate it -- that is, to have other people be present to something in the conversation?

(I ask because it seems to me that you intend to contribute or to generate something for or make something available to others by posting here.)

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Good thing we're on a personal development site. Time to build up your confidence so you stop doubting your ability to set people free.

It's true, I'm way too humble.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

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.

So, is that your intended purpose here, Arcane one? To "negate everyone's understanding," like a perpetual devil's advocate, or something?

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.

Well, tbh, I'm more up for Spongebob's idea than yours, if it's only to dispute what each of us understand.

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.

Well, if you can't Be Who You are, then what else can one do to see that they're cup is already full?

Seriously, Arcane one, I used to think you were pretty sharp. Now, you're beginning to appear to me to be a real Donny Downer.

[Beingist]

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.

Well, I'm wont to agree with you here, Arcane one, but as I suggested in an earlier post, others' self-imposed suffering is not really ours to solve. Compassion is about all we can really do, and perhaps a prayer (if you're so inclined), but otherwise, as long as you can Love, then only Love can have any kind of effect.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

So ideas happen in, with, or by something that doesn't exist? Where's our idea doohickey?

Do you see what I'm driving at, Arcane one? I could go on forever with questions such as these, and neither one of us will get anywhere, because it's all just mental masturbation. Thinkingness. You can have it, I say. I would prefer to simply BE, and view thought for what it is--just thought.

Which is exacta-mentally what I'm saying. No mind entity, just thought. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you hadn't expressed your ideas about mind and ego behaving like entities. Do you see what I'm driving at, Being one?

Well, perhaps you might think that Being is rather "imaginary Being mode", but I do not. Rather, I don't think anything or anyone has any choice but to just BE, in the end. Until then, if people prefer to get in their own way by "carrying" anything "around", that's their choice.

As Capital One says "What's in YOUR pocket?"

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Angela

Do you mean to just talk about what you love, or also to communicate it -- that is, to have other people be present to something in the conversation?

(I ask because it seems to me that you intend to contribute or to generate something for or make something available to others by posting here.)

Laughing Out Loud

Sorry, Angela, haven't seen you in a while, which is to say, I haven't seen the word thingy you do in a while, and to see it again kinda cracks me up.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Laughing Out Loud

Sorry, Angela, haven't seen you in a while, which is to say, I haven't seen the word thingy you do in a while, and to see it again kinda cracks me up.

Yeah, I think Inri and Angela may have attended the same wordsmith college.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Which is exacta-mentally what I'm saying. No mind entity, just thought. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you hadn't expressed your ideas about mind and ego behaving like entities. Do you see what I'm driving at, Being one?

Oh, okay, well ... that's cool.

As for the mind/ego idea, it's just an idea. A perception. And so, you'd agree that it's not even real. In fact, it might even change, or dissolve completely, eventually. I rather figured you would have understood that, and not even commented.

But, whatever. Glad to know we're back on a similar page.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Angela

Do you mean to just talk about what you love, or also to communicate it -- that is, to have other people be present to something in the conversation?

(I ask because it seems to me that you intend to contribute or to generate something for or make something available to others by posting here.)

Gee, I dunno, Angela. Are we going somewhere with this?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

So, is that your intended purpose here, Arcane one? To "negate everyone's understanding," like a perpetual devil's advocate, or something?
Well, tbh, I'm more up for Spongebob's idea than yours, if it's only to dispute what each of us understand.
Well, if you can't Be Who You are, then what else can one do to see that they're cup is already full?

Seriously, Arcane one, I used to think you were pretty sharp. Now, you're beginning to appear to me to be a real Donny Downer.

Yeah, peeps don't like being robbed of what they think they know, especially if they're trying not to notice they know anything.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Oh, okay, well ... that's cool.

As for the mind/ego idea, it's just an idea. A perception. And so, you'd agree that it's not even real. In fact, it might even change, or dissolve completely, eventually. I rather figured you would have understood that, and not even commented.

But, whatever. Glad to know we're back on a similar page.

An idea is just that. An idea believed in is the point at which you stop 'just being'.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Gee, I dunno, Angela. Are we going somewhere with this?

We could be, if you like.

Where I was going is: from my point of view, it seems that you want to contribute something or make something available in this conversation; you actually seem pretty committed to that. I'm interested in what that is, whatever it is. Are you interested in sharing it with me?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Laughing Out Loud

Sorry, Angela, haven't seen you in a while, which is to say, I haven't seen the word thingy you do in a while, and to see it again kinda cracks me up.

I guess I'm just getting to know about Angela's 'word thingy'.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Yeah, I think Inri and Angela may have attended the same wordsmith college.

OMG! Inri has a twin?!

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Oh, okay, well ... that's cool.

As for the mind/ego idea, it's just an idea. A perception. And so, you'd agree that it's not even real. In fact, it might even change, or dissolve completely, eventually. I rather figured you would have understood that, and not even commented.

But, whatever. Glad to know we're back on a similar page.

Well, I rather figured you would have just said that to begin with instead of the "King/Throne" 'ego and mind allowing each other to do their thing' story. That's what started all this. It wasn't my idea.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

An idea is just that. An idea believed in is the point at which you stop 'just being'.

Zackly what I was 'driving at'.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Angela

We could be, if you like.

Where I was going is: from my point of view, it seems that you want to contribute something or make something available in this conversation; you actually seem pretty committed to that. I'm interested in what that is, whatever it is. Are you interested in sharing it with me?

Not really, Angela, but I've enjoyed our time together.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Not really, Angela, but I've enjoyed our time together.

Okey doke. See ya!

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

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

Sounds like a deal to me, even though I don't think I ever referred to objectivity in the first instance, as 'HIM'.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Neither mind nor ego ever become more than ideas.

If by 'mind', we are referencing consciousness, then I would have thought the ultimate reason we have it in the first place, is because it is the inner 'I am'; that which the physical frame carries around this planet for however long we enjoy existence as a soul - being in turn the conjoined result of both physical and spiritual = human, and for the purpose of it (consciousness) effectively becoming 'ideas' by design.

So as our spiritual dimension, consciousness (mind) develops ideas/concepts/blueprints and then through a process of many layers of choice, produces and directs the power (energy) it subsequently produces in order to bring those concepts into a verifiable corporeality.

I (my consciousness) might imagine for instance; satisfying a need for a drink of water, then effectually becomes that very concept by organising the electrical impulses it produces towards enacting the physical structure towards that purpose.

[Apopohis Reject]

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.

Well Beingist, you might think that funny, however I think it a sad but inevitable result of our focus on subjectivity - that part of us which necessarily divides, fragments our view of existence, in contradiction to the infinitely more valid objective perception.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Spongebob would like for all of us to put our minds together and come up with a workable model of reality

That is not what I 'would like', so much as what is effectively going on right now, right here.

We are in fact pooling our resources, concepts, all towards a great revealing of the essence of reality - with particular focus upon our consciousness. This ultimately, is the purpose of humanity in its entirety. That is; once the fragmentation of subjectivity can be negotiated.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

If by 'mind', we are referencing consciousness, then I would have thought the ultimate reason we have it in the first place, is because it is the inner 'I am'; that which the physical frame carries around this planet for however long we enjoy existence as a soul - being in turn the conjoined result of both physical and spiritual = human, and for the purpose of it (consciousness) effectively becoming 'ideas' by design.

So as our spiritual dimension, consciousness (mind) develops ideas/concepts/blueprints and then through a process of many layers of choice, produces and directs the power (energy) it subsequently produces in order to bring those concepts into a verifiable corporeality.

I (my consciousness) might imagine for instance; satisfying a need for a drink of water, then effectually becomes that very concept by organising the electrical impulses it produces towards enacting the physical structure towards that purpose.

I think consciousness is usually a different concept. Mind, in this case, refers to the thought process.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I think consciousness is usually a different concept. Mind, in this case, refers to the thought process.

So by regular deduction, you're saying that 'mind' doesn't exist, which must indicate that consciousness is superfluous, right? Either that, or it too doesn't exist.

But then if I reference an earlier statement of yours, the plot thickens....

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Which is exacta-mentally what I'm saying. No mind entity, just thought.

So mind doesn't exist but thought does, yet the thought process IS mind. Hmmmmm

Why am I becoming a little confused with this, I wonder?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

That is not what I 'would like', so much as what is effectively going on right now, right here.

We are in fact pooling our resources, concepts, all towards a great revealing of the essence of reality - with particular focus upon our consciousness. This ultimately, is the purpose of humanity in its entirety. That is; once the fragmentation of subjectivity can be negotiated.

Purpose, for you, is whatever you decide it is.
In this context, we could say the essence of reality is emptiness. No concept will survive the exploration of that which is prior to concepts.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

So by regular deduction, you're saying that 'mind' doesn't exist, which must indicate that consciousness is superfluous, right? Either that, or it too doesn't exist.

But then if I reference an earlier statement of yours, the plot thickens....

So mind doesn't exist but thought does, yet the thought process IS mind. Hmmmmm

Why am I becoming a little confused with this, I wonder?

I don't know, but I suspect it's the result of thinking too much and 'looking' too little. Again, I'm saying mind isn't a thing or an entity. It's a concept that refers to a thinking process.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Purpose, for you, is whatever you decide it is.
In this context, we could say the essence of reality is emptiness. No concept will survive the exploration of that which is prior to concepts.

Well that is - unless there was a concept to commence the whole process in the first instance, which I argue to be precisely the reality - our reality.

As such, once we negotiate the fragmentation wrought by our subjectivity, we will soon recognise that we are not fragmented in any way, notwthstanding our primary perspective of existence, that is. Indeed, from the objective perspective, we are all ONE, and as such our 'purpose' is to be one.

Clearly such will never suit most, for they thrive in their fragmentation. Nevertheless the purpose will continue onwards towards it's conclusion; that being a one-ness in the few that have made decision to negotiate the barrier to this one-ness.