Subjective vs. Objective reality

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I bet that you even believe that your statement is objective.

Whilst the finished sentence itself remains objective, as in everything, there are degrees of objectivity and subjectivity behind the action. So permit me now to take that statement and attempt to colour code it this time - more objective, more subjective and conditional, then you might share what you conclude?

A harsh reality of surviving our existence daily under the debt, expectations and derision of society becomes an increasingly burdensome and unrewarding task.

That isn't quite as simplistic as it might appear, especially when one is suffering sleep deprivation after three days of similar. Your conclusion might be quite different, yet it was an interesting exercise nonetheless.

[Apopohis Reject]

Although my cranial contents feel like a quivering mush right now, and my eyes can't so much as focus on these keys any longer, I'm going to post the following, even though I'm not even certain any longer if it was myself who typed it....

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Then you have to decide which is the point you don't buy it.

- Your parents are made of muscles, bones, skin etc. Do you buy this or not? **

- Muscles, bones, skin are made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen atoms in different combinations. Do you buy this or not? **

- C, H and O are made of atoms. Do you buy this or not? **

- Atoms are mostly empty space and some electrons, protons and neutrons. Do you buy this or not? **

Etc. Therefore your parents are mostly empty space. Do you buy this or not? **

The reason why you have difficulty buying it is that the "real world" - as you observe it to be - is so very, very different from what I am telling you. Hold those assumptions for a second. I've now agreed with you re. all the above around 4 or 5 times already - even on different threads

What you may not be grasping at this point is that that's how formidable your powers as a creator are. You have perceived into existence a "real world" .... out of empty space. *Moot point - refer to response above

Thus to the extent that you can alter your perception (and your thoughts)** about the "real world", it will change.** I mean, you already created it**, as it is, out of empty space. What else couldn't you do?**

Ok, this last sentence is a little co-dependent in terms to tackle as is, so if I may deconstruct it, such...
"You can alter your perception (and your thoughts)" - Permit me to set aside thoughts for the moment, for these necessarily ensue from our perception, which will be a sufficiently complex issue with which to deal for the time being, thank you very much.

So I certainly accept one can alter their perception - ie. switch from a default favouring per subjective to objective. However attenuating down the subjective volume, will certainly not occur accidentally nor spontaneously. Moreover; I've seen little evidence that a great many contributors here so much as recognise there are two perceptions, much less understand the difference or why they are constantly creating such a serious disconnect from reality for us.

So ALG - do you? Or are we whistling in the dark here, as it might appear right now?

So for the sake of it; let's assume we recognise the difference re. perception between subjectivity (A.) and objectivity (B.), and let's assume we appreciate from whence that separation comes (big assumption there), and let's assume we recognise our need for both A. and B. in order to relate to existence in any way, and let's assume cognition re. how we generally, unknowingly mistake A. for B. (phffft), and let's assume we understand our primal urge to overlay A. upon B. yet don't so much as recognise we have A., and let's assume we see the inherent problem needing urgent attention (yet another major leap), and let's further assume ... ok enough with the assumptions already....

With all of the above set conveniently in situ, how would you go about designing a plan to alter (correct) the serious imbalance and dissonance in the above dynamics of such default mentality?

"(perception) about the "real world", it will change" The 'real world' will change every time (at least) every animate being within it makes choice to act. Subsequently a change in the 'real world' will necessarily be effected. So objectively a change will eventuate, however subjectively - perhaps also, yet not necessarily so. That is all according the objective reality. On the other hand - about the subjective perception of this reality.....

It would appear that you're suggestion is that one's (subjective) perception of (say) a glass of water (objective) being poison (subjective) - effectively makes it poison to the one perceiving it as such, in which instance I accept. However I'd require further explanation as to how such subjective perception can also effectuate an objective - actual - change in reality; which will have the poisonous effect upon a second party after drinking.

"I mean, you already created (the real world)" This is where things can become a little messy, so perhaps it's at this point where my struggle commences in earnest with all this. Anyways...
Re the physical sense: you say 'I created the real world', which seems obvious if you are referencing the physical changes I've physically made to the physical world immediately around me. For instance, I might pick up a pen and put it down again; necessarily in a different location. So I have (according my subjectivity) made (or changed) my objective personal reality in Sydney. However I can't see how you can translate this to the (objective) changes effectuated by your subjectivity, as being my (objectively or subjectively) changing 'the real world' over yonder, and vice-versa.

On the other hand, you may well be suggesting that my (subjective) perception creates my reality, thus ...
Re. the conceptual sense: If I conceptualised my Maserati, I'm wondering again - if there's an actual, physical car to drive as I've always understood, in which case you must be referencing my creating my physical environment in a physical sense based upon my subjective perception. That is; I physically open a physical door of a physical car and physically manoeuvre it around the streets? Yet this is about the conceptual sense, so you must be referring to my need to conceptualise myself opening a physical door etc., as promoted from my subjectivity in relation to my environment, ie. - I desired driving my Maserati, therefore conceptualised doing so, which in turn preceded the action, right?

This being the case, and my urgent need for sleep, I hereby conceptualise us at this point, as being all KOOOL.

[Rajones]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Reality itself cannot ever be subjective. Reality is always objective - for such is it's inherent nature, even if subjectivity generated it.

Actually:
Reality can only be assumed to be objective,
and can only be experienced as subjective.
You can fool yourself, as you have done,
into believing you are one of many.
But you will always be one.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Rajones

Actually:
Reality can only be assumed to be objective,

I'm wondering what be your definition of "assumed" in this instance, and why it appears to be alternative to mine?

I mean if we were to look at a tree for instance. Right there we have what we can rightly consider a real object - an objective fact if you like. It stands in it's own right, which is a statement that the tree's existence depends NOT upon whether you or I like it or feel warmth towards it, or understand it, or have desire for it to be there, or have any of 100 feelings about it. It simply stands in situ within the realm of existence, where it presumably, originally sprouted from a seed, and therefore exists outside of any sense of dependency upon assumption or any whim of anyone - not mine, not yours, not anyones.

The tree will remain an objective reality, a plain unhindered authenticity no matter what assumptions anyone ever makes about it or how we see it or relate to it individually or corporately. Moreover, that tree will remain an eternal objective actuality, an objective reality even if someone were to come along and make decision to cut it down and chop it up for firewood.

Of course whether it continues to stand in it's own right, or become firewood, in such circumstance be dependent upon someone's whim - and therefore their subjectivity.

Originally Posted by Rajones

and can only be experienced as subjective.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this statement. If I drive my car along the road and pick up a little speed, and for some reason make the irregular choice, or even in a moment of absentmindedness direct it headlong into our objective tree, my car will, and I will without too much assumption or doubt, encounter a quite objective tree.

This is not to suggest that the tree will object to my actions, however. That would be according a variant usage for the term, yet if it would object in some manner, would be indicative the tree also must deal with an inherent subjectivity. However I think at this point, we are safe to assume that without some evidence to the contrary; the tree really has no subjectivity with which to contend.

Now the moment my car encounters collision with that tree, it, the tree, the car and I have an objective reality needing to be dealt with; being an objective collision which has produced at some level;

A. Objective physical damage to the objective actuality - tree
B. Objective physical damage to the objective reality - car
C. (Possibly) objective physical damage to the objective fact - human (me), and also;
D. A newly realised subjective interpretation for me alone to contend, in relationship with all the details of objective reality - A. B. and C.

Originally Posted by Rajones

You can fool yourself, as you have done, into believing you are one of many.

The term 'fool yourself' in this context seems unnecessary and unhelpful, however subjectivity towards it will slide in favour of the following...

It is when we look at ourselves subjectively that we perveive ourselves as many, separate, isolated. Yet when we look at ourselves objectively, we are also but one - which my good friend, I've been arguing on this forum from day one. So quite objectively, for mine your 'fooling myself' appears a little irrelevant.

Surely we all have BOTH perceptions available for evaluation per our consciousness, and one (the subjective) is by default in the ascendency, is naturally far more prevalent to our awareness than the other. However we always have the freedom of choice with regards our perception - to embrace the other concomitant (objective) perception.

Originally Posted by Rajones

But you will always be one.

If I've failed to cover this point in the above, please feel free my friend, to show me what I've missed.

[Rajones]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

If I've failed to cover this point in the above, please feel free my friend, to show me what I've missed.

I think what your missing is the effects of your beliefs.
Personally, when I view things from the subjective viewpoint, they jus seem to go well. (for instance, hitting the tree would simply never happen)
When viewed objectively, things seem to go overall not well.
like hitting a tree, or jus simply being less graceful, peaceful, etc, little hints from the universe that im on the wrong track. these effects are instant, so i can decide immediately to think more subjective.

Have you ever believed your reality to be completely subjective?
These effects are instant, as well.

[Acting Like Godot]

The tree isn't real.

If you can't accept the truth that it is 99.9999999% empty space and the rest of it is blinking in and out of existence .... you can instead look up the alternative Buddhist explanation of interdependent arising which leads to the conclusion of the illusory nature of reality.

From the Buddhist point of view, it's the misapprehension of the nature of reality that gives rise ultimately to all forms of suffering. For example, believing that the tree (or your Maserati, or your mother, or your house, or your youth) is real, is the only way you can experience grief, when the tree falls down, your mother dies, the house is foreclosed, you grow old etc.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The tree isn't real.

If you can't accept the truth that it is 99.9999999% empty space and the rest of it is blinking in and out of existence .... you can instead look up the alternative Buddhist explanation of interdependent arising which leads to the conclusion of the illusory nature of reality.

Listen to me now ALG, pleeeeeeease.....

I have accepted your proposition as stated above a million times already. As re-stated in a post to you a few days back, and again now - I fundamentally made this realisation around 30 years ago, and have been living with it in my memory banks and subsequent evaluations ever since, therefore I have long ago passed any need to question it. So please let's not again cover this ground, and let's move along honourably.

Now even though I'm not, never have been a Buddhist, I quite harmonise with some of their teachings, and on this basis, I'll now respond to ....

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

From the Buddhist point of view, it's the misapprehension of the nature of reality that gives rise ultimately to all forms of suffering. For example, believing that the tree (or your Maserati, or your mother, or your house, or your youth) is real, is the only way you can experience grief, when the tree falls down, your mother dies, the house is foreclosed, you grow old etc.

This again comes down to our two essential concomitant perceptions - Objective and Subjective.

So I accept, agree and embrace that we misapprehend reality, yet that reality regardless of our misapprehension and our definition according it, has it's own reality - again; no matter how you define this term as deployed or relate to it either way.

What I mean is - Even if it (the tree, your car, my leg, your favorite cucumber sandwich) is .... 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999% empty space; and this as such will be our mutually adopted definition to the term 'real' or it's 'reality', then let us shake hands, have a cold drink together and advance with this under reciprocal acceptance re. our terms of eternal friendship.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Rajones

I think what your missing is the effects of your beliefs.

Ok my friend; thankyou and I'm listening....

Originally Posted by Rajones

Personally, when I view things from the subjective viewpoint, they jus seem to go well. (for instance, hitting the tree would simply never happen)

Yes I got this point previously. However let's assume you to be 100% subjective for a moment, and in this moment and condition resting, sleeping adjacent to our tree, yet the tree had some serious unknown rotting going on in it's structure, and subsequently suddenly collapsed in your direction whilst you were sleeping adjacent to it. Now would you expect to be excused from experiencing at least a little pain?

Originally Posted by Rajones

When viewed objectively, things seem to go overall not well. like hitting a tree, or jus simply being less graceful, peaceful, etc, little hints from the universe that im on the wrong track. these effects are instant, so i can decide immediately to think more subjective.

Even though your words have the appearance of conveying a valid perception, I'm thinking you're mixing your alternate perceptions with your thoughts; respectively being; under choice.

We do not have any choice in our perceptions as I see it. They are two concomitant results of the two pre-eminent sources into our consciousness - one per each side, and likewise, neither of which is under our direct control (unless we suicide I guess).

Our thoughts then come into our awareness AFTER all the above has conceptualised, and therefore is an entirely separate discussion.

Originally Posted by Rajones

Have you ever believed your reality to be completely subjective?

My reality can only be subjective in being conceptualised within my consciousness. So yes indeed, I've been exceedingly subjective at times - usually when in a disconsolate state, such as after my girlfriend viciously dumping me whilst I was in the middle of helping her, supporting her, all according my love for her. Of course and alas, she was in a very subjective frame of reference at the time.

[Irisha]

The tree or anything cannot be just atoms and empty space.
Everything is atoms and empty space + SOMETHING ELSE WE CANNOT FIND WORDS IN A HUMAN LANGUAGE.
This SOMETHING is the most important thing, and it ALWAYS drastically changes ALL your conclusions and interpretations.
So, actually we cannot make any conclusions per se. Or if it's just for having fun, then yes . But not for the sake of the truth or something like the truth.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Irisha

The tree or anything cannot be just atoms and empty space.
Everything is atoms and empty space + SOMETHING ELSE WE CANNOT FIND WORDS IN A HUMAN LANGUAGE.
This SOMETHING is the most important thing, and it ALWAYS drastically changes ALL your conclusions and interpretations.
So, actually we cannot make any conclusions per se. Or if it's just for having fun, then yes. But not for the sake of the truth or something like the truth.

Irisha, you are 100% correct of course.

Whatever term we might use for this 'other' aspect of reality to which you refer - I personally indicate it (rather HIM) by more than one identification, yet it is upon this pre-eminent essence within all things, that indeed underpins all reality; upon which all existence is predicated, that we do exceedingly well to defer in the most humble of references.

All these terms of course reference precisely the same 'ETERNAL LIFE FORCE' within and without all matter. Alternatively perhaps; 'THE INFINITE STOREHOUSE OF OBJECTIVITY', or more simply 'INTELLIGENCE', or getting back to basics - the original Hebrew term; 'YAH' etc.

Thank you so much for your generous and kindly reminder.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The tree isn't real.

If you can't accept the truth that it is 99.9999999% empty space and the rest of it is blinking in and out of existence .... you can instead look up the alternative Buddhist explanation of interdependent arising which leads to the conclusion of the illusory nature of reality.

From the Buddhist point of view, it's the misapprehension of the nature of reality that gives rise ultimately to all forms of suffering. For example, believing that the tree (or your Maserati, or your mother, or your house, or your youth) is real, is the only way you can experience grief, when the tree falls down, your mother dies, the house is foreclosed, you grow old etc.

In terms of suffering, the fact that the fundamental nature of everything is essentially empty space isn't, by itself, of any real use. Whether there is 99% space in a rock, or 99% matter doesn't actually make it hurt any less when it hits me in the 99% empty head, nor does it automatically say anything about real or unreal.

The reason the proportion of space in a thing doesn't tell me anything about how real it is, is mostly because I don't have another reference for real. If I was 99% mass and the rock was 99% space, I might have a basis for calling myself real and the rock not real, though if it still hurt 99% I'm not sure I would care about the distinction.

We could conclude that if the one being hit with a rock is 99% space, that might imply that what I am is not that 1% matter, which would be true, but it doesn't actually solve the problem of the rock hurting, or really alter the attachment to any experience that is being had. The only way to do that would be to KNOW that what I am is other than the space man and that I'm not ultimately harmed.

[bodi]

Since you* really don't understand what 'matter' is, or 'space', either, its kind of a silly argument, isn't it?

* (the human race, naked monkeys that we are, don't take it personally)

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

In terms of suffering, the fact that the fundamental nature of everything is essentially empty space isn't, by itself, of any real use. Whether there is 99% space in a rock, or 99% matter doesn't actually make it hurt any less when it hits me in the 99% empty head, nor does it automatically say anything about real or unreal.

100% with you right there, but now I'm left wondering why, when I was making this very point a week and a half ago in relation to trains and standing in front of them between the tracks, you felt inclined to repeatedly correct me until I left the discussion??? Why would that be, I wonder?

Originally Posted by Arcanum

The reason the proportion of space in a thing doesn't tell me anything about how real it is, is mostly because I don't have another reference for real. If I was 99% mass and the rock was 99% space, I might have a basis for calling myself real and the rock not real, though if it still hurt 99% I'm not sure I would care about the distinction.

Precisely, and my point with ALG.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

We could conclude that if the one being hit with a rock is 99% space, that might imply that what I am is not that 1% matter, which would be true, but it doesn't actually solve the problem of the rock hurting, or really alter the attachment to any experience that is being had. The only way to do that would be to KNOW that what I am is other than the space man and that I'm not ultimately harmed.

If it was relevant!

BTW, your term 'attachment' appears to be perilously close to my 'subjectivity', as opposed to the 'objective' - as perhaps being hit by a rock.

[Luciddd]

If the mind didnt made you feel pain, the rock wouldnt hurt you.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

In terms of suffering, the fact that the fundamental nature of everything is essentially empty space isn't, by itself, of any real use.

Correct.

That is why in my personal explorations with the LOA, I tend to stick very much to things which have practical value or, to use your phrase, "real use".

But then you already knew that, from previous discussions, and yet you somewhat disdained the practical approach (for whatever reason).

We could conclude that if the one being hit with a rock is 99% space, that might imply that what I am is not that 1% matter, which would be true, but it doesn't actually solve the problem of the rock hurting, or really alter the attachment to any experience that is being had.

Again that's correct.

However if you could easily and rapidly remove the pain or accelerate the healing, via some mind method, then firstly, that is of practical value, and secondly, it will conceptually seem less plausible to regard your pain as "real".

Now of course, there are all kinds of interesting reports about how people can and do remove (through the use of various mind methods) what should be great physical pain. Just to illustrate, I offer Alex Lenkei, whose thumb-bone was sawn off by doctors, without anaesthesia:

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Sussex | Man hypnotises himself before op

Man hypnotises himself before op

A hypnotist from West Sussex has undergone surgery on his right hand without a general anaesthetic.

Alex Lenkei, 61, from Worthing, chose to sedate himself by hypnosis before undergoing the 83-minute operation.

He said he was fully aware of everything going on around him during the procedure but was free from pain.

The operation at Worthing Hospital involved removing some bone in the base of the thumb and fusing some joints in an attempt to improve his arthritis.

Consultant orthopaedic surgeon David Llewellyn-Clark said he was happy in agreeing to the unusual sedation on Mr Lenkei, a registered hypnotist who has been practising since the age of 16.

“ At one stage a hammer and chisel was used as well as a surgical saw, but I felt no pain ”

Mr Lenkei said Wednesday's surgery "went amazingly well".

"It took between 30 seconds to a minute for me to place myself under hypnosis, and from that point I felt a very deep relaxation.

"I was aware of everything around me, from people talking and at one stage a hammer and chisel was used as well as a surgical saw, but I felt no pain."

Throughout the operation, an anaesthetist was on standby to administer an anaesthetic if necessary.

Mr Llewellyn-Clark said he had been confident that Mr Lenkei was a skilled hypnotist and was "delighted all went well".

Since Alex could allow a hammer, a chisel and a saw to be used on his bones without any pain, the question then arises - how "real" is the pain that ordinary people experience, when they fall down, get scratched, suffer a burn, get cancer etc?

Is it just a state of mind? And if you merely change that state of mind (Alex just took about 30 to 60 seconds, to do that), and the pain is just not there anymore .... well, how "real" was it, in the first place?

[Acting Like Godot]

Oh, look. Some Swedish scientists have just discovered God's first big secret.

Swedish scientists create light from almost nothing | Science & Technology | Deutsche Welle | 18.11.2011

18.11.2011
Swedish scientists create light from almost nothing

Scientists at Chalmers University in Sweden have proved that a vacuum is not, in fact, empty, by capturing light in it. It is an experiment confirming a theory of quantum mechanics first proposed over 40 years ago.

Physicists at Chalmers University in Gothenburg, Sweden, have managed to turn "virtual" light particles, flickering in and out of existence in a vacuum, into measurable, material particles.

The experiment was based on one of the more confusing, yet important principles in quantum mechanics: that a vacuum is by no means empty. In fact, empty space is a seething ocean of infinitesimal particles that fluctuate in and out of existence, defying the laws of classical physics because they only exist for the briefest of moments.

[ALG's note: There, that's the part where I talk about small particles, and ultimately the universe itself, rapidly blinking in and out of existence]

The Chalmers team succeeded in getting photons to leave their virtual state and become real photons, e.g. measurable light. They did this by effectively tricking the photons into thinking they were bouncing off a mirror spinning at close to the speed of light.

Their results were published in the journal Nature, on Thursday.

Copying a spinning mirror

In 1970, physicist Gerald Moore predicted that virtual photons would turn into material ones – in other words, measurable light - if they were bounced off a mirror moving at close to the speed of light. Since it is technologically impossible to do this, Moore's theory, known as the dynamical Casimir effect, was for forty years only a thought experiment.

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Space, it turns out, is never really emptyBut the Chalmers scientists have now managed to replicate it by an ingenious trick.

"It's very hard to do, because anything that has a mass, you have to put in a lot of energy to make it move fast," said Per Delsing, a professor of Experimental Physics at Chalmers, in an interview with Deutsche Welle.

"So what we did, instead of moving something that is massive, we moved something that is mass-less. In layman's terms, you could say what we moved is a short in a circuit, and instead of changing where the short is, we change how much it's shorting – so we're changing the degree to which it shorts."

Timothy Spiller, a physics professor at the University of Leeds in the UK, was impressed with the experiment.

"I think it's a really beautiful demonstration," he told Deutsche Welle. "It increases our understanding and it's a breakthrough in physics."

The "mirror" of the Chalmers experiment is the SQUID (Superconducting quantum interference device) a quantum electronic component extremely sensitive to magnetic fields. By changing the direction of the magnetic field several billions of times a second, Delsing and his colleagues were able to make the "mirror" vibrate at a speed of up to 25 percent of the speed of light.

Give the vacuum a kick

It's important to make clear that the dynamical Casimir effect – creating light from nothing - is not a revolutionary new source of energy.

"If you take a mirror or a plate and wiggle it around very fast, then it ought to create photons, quanta of light, out of a vacuum," explained Spiller.

"Now, you're not getting anything for free. The energy comes from the moving plate being turned into light. In the vacuum you have all these little fluctuating things anyway, which kind of borrow energy on a very short time-scale and then give it back."

"If you whack the vacuum with this great big moving object, you're able to give some of those little fluctuations enough energy that they become real," said Spiller. "In short, if you give the vacuum a bit of a kick, stuff just appears out of it."

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has withstood many experimental testsThis is, however, something only possible in quantum physics, first theorized at the beginning of the last century, but not in classical physics. It's possible because of the brief fluctuations in a vacuum.

"There's a very fundamental principle in quantum mechanics called the Heisenberg uncertainty relation," said Delsing. "Essentially it means you can make something which does not conserve energy if your timescale is short enough. And nature uses that to create particles and then quickly take them away again."

And when Delsing says "quickly," he means it: "It's a question of picoseconds."

A picosecond is one trillionth of a second, or – if you prefer - 0.000,000,000,001 seconds.

"People often call these fluctuations 'virtual particles,'" added Spiller.

"What they mean by that is they've borrowed energy to have this tiny, fleeting existence. Because of the uncertainty principle, you can have an uncertainty in energy and in time. These are complementary variables that between them have a bit of uncertainty - and quantum physics allows that uncertainty to exist. So these particles can borrow energy – their energy is 'uncertain' -provided they give it back. What these guys have done is give these virtual particles a kick to make them real."

Combining theory and practice

"Well, we think this is great," Delsing said of the work. "There were several experiments that led up to this. It was a long road. And it was a very intense collaboration between experiment and theory."

That collaboration is important, because while much of quantum mechanics is still theoretical, and in some cases impossible to demonstrate, it has stood the test of time. Increasingly the technology is being developed to test quantum theory.

This observation – like many others - goes some way to proving that quantum theory is very much on the right track. "It certainly confirms our quantum theory predictions," said Delsing. "There are many experiments that confirm the theory, and this is one of them."

"People keep trying to find new tests for quantum physics, in one sense in the hope that they find something unexpected and different," said Spiller. "Every time they come up with a new test, it seems that quantum mechanics meets that challenge and gives the results you would expect."

Author: Ben Knight
Editor: Cyrus Farivar

DW-WORLD.DE | Print

| Home | Deutsche Welle | © Deutsche Welle.

[Apopohis Reject]

Now ALG - doesn't that sound exciting? I wonder what it could mean for us - at the END of 2011??

[Irisha]

Immortality. It could mean immortality.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by bodi

Since you* really don't understand what 'matter' is, or 'space', either, its kind of a silly argument, isn't it?

* (the human race, naked monkeys that we are, don't take it personally)

True, they're just ideas that took themselves seriously. Hehe.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

100% with you right there, but now I'm left wondering why, when I was making this very point a week and a half ago in relation to trains and standing in front of them between the tracks, you felt inclined to repeatedly correct me until I left the discussion??? Why would that be, I wonder?

Sorry, I don't remember the conversation very clearly. Unless it's important maybe we can just chalk it up to lunar cycle influences or sumthin.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

If the mind didnt made you feel pain, the rock wouldnt hurt you.

Perhaps a bullet to the head prior to the rock incident would resolve the problem?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Sorry, I don't remember the conversation very clearly. Unless it's important maybe we can just chalk it up to lunar cycle influences or sumthin.

It's not important any more, especially since we appear to be closer to being on the same lunar cycle influence, sorry I mean page - now.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Irisha

Immortality. It could mean immortality.

Indeed Irisha, it could well mean immortality, and what's more I think you may well have a darn good idea about what was behind my making that post, huh?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Correct.

That is why in my personal explorations with the LOA, I tend to stick very much to things which have practical value or, to use your phrase, "real use".

But then you already knew that, from previous discussions, and yet you somewhat disdained the practical approach (for whatever reason).

Disdained? You didn't introduce any sort of practical application in this discussion, as far as I recall. You just kept telling Spongebob in various ways that nothing is real, based on the fact that it's 99% space, or on the dependent arisings teaching of Buddhism. Were you just about to introduce the practical applications, or were you waiting for somebody else to come along and disdain it?

I'm not sure what the relationship is between 99% space and hypnosis. Does hypnosis work betterer when there's lots of space?

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Perhaps a bullet to the head prior to the rock incident would resolve the problem?

I was refering more or less to what the guy with the pain did, except that to the n-level.

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Disdained? You didn't introduce any sort of practical application in this discussion, as far as I recall. You just kept telling Spongebob in various ways that nothing is real, based on the fact that it's 99% space, or on the dependent arisings teaching of Buddhism. Were you just about to introduce the practical applications, or were you waiting for somebody else to come along and disdain it?

I'm not sure what the relationship is between 99% space and hypnosis. Does hypnosis work betterer when there's lots of space?

The pain hypnosis thing may refer that it is possible because nothing is real, if there was really an "out there" then it would be more difficult to do so.

[Irisha]

"If you whack the vacuum with this great big moving object, you're able to give some of those little fluctuations enough energy that they become real," said Spiller. "In short, if you give the vacuum a bit of a kick, stuff just appears out of it."
This is really awesome! Is it how you are doing your manifestations, ALG?
I asked MG but he keeps it secret.

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by Irisha

"If you whack the vacuum with this great big moving object, you're able to give some of those little fluctuations enough energy that they become real," said Spiller. "In short, if you give the vacuum a bit of a kick, stuff just appears out of it."
This is really awesome! Is it how you are doing your manifestations, ALG?
I asked MG but he keeps it secret.

What did you just quotes? Can you explain more about it?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Disdained? You didn't introduce any sort of practical application in this discussion, as far as I recall.

Correct. I was referring to your disdain in the previous discussions.

But then you already knew that, from previous discussions, and yet you somewhat disdained the practical approach (for whatever reason).

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I'm not sure what the relationship is between 99% space and hypnosis. Does hypnosis work betterer when there's lots of space?

Hypnosis is a specialised way of thinking thoughts and forming & altering beliefs. In turn, "reality" is shaped, created and changed by thoughts and beliefs.

The big difficulty of changing your thoughts and altering your beliefs is that you (or people in general) tend to cling hard to pre-existing notions of what is "real". This clinging (or attachment) makes it difficult for you (or people in general) to change their minds about the various aspects of reality.

For example, Apopohis thinks that a tree is "real". Out of this concept, he builds other concepts, such as how trees ought to behave, and what they can do, and what they can't do. These concepts are so strong that trees will generally behave in ways unsurprising to Apopohis. In other words, trees will behave in a "realistic" manner, in Apopohis's reality.

One way to release some of these limits is to bear in mind that trees aren't actually "real". In fact they are mostly empty space. Like a Zen question that stuns the conceptual mind, the notion that trees aren't "real", aren't even "there", then frees you to select other thoughts and beliefs about trees - thoughts and beliefs which you would otherwise find too bizarre, unusual or ridiculous to accept.

To the extent that you can free yourself from those mental constraints, you will be able to shape your reality as you wish, through your thoughts. Here's an example from Jesus, who decides to kill a tree with his thoughts:

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

When evening came, they went out of the city.

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"

"Have faith in God," Jesus answered. "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, `Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

Admittedly, not much value in killing a poor tree like that - I wouldn't do it, even if I could.