Subjective vs. Objective reality

[Apopohis Reject]

Luciddd: Isnt it a little too extreme? This is like saying I am responsible for the Irak War, how could I be? I was totally against it or the Japan eartquacke which I had no knowledge of until it was on the news.

Originally Posted by cacheborn

You are right if you adopt the objective reality mindset. In a subjective reality mindset however, EVERYTHING that happens is your responsibility. You created it.

You cannot prove it, by the way. But if you want more information read Steve's articles on subjective reality.

It would appear you are confusing the two. The objective reality is that we all are one and the same, therefore 'I' am just as much a part of any problem that exists as the one I'd subjectively like to blame.

My subjectivity however produces an internalised subjective view of this objective reality - a subjectivity. This then, becomes my subjective reality, which in turn only partially relates to the objective reality - re. everything in existence.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

It would appear you are confusing the two. The objective reality is that we all are one and the same, therefore 'I' am just as much a part of any problem that exists as the one I'd subjectively like to blame.

My subjectivity however produces an internalised subjective view of this objective reality - a subjectivity. This then, becomes my subjective reality, which in turn only partially relates to the objective reality - re. everything in existence.

Right, the subject isn't responsible for war and the like, and since objectivity is just an imagined perspective, it also is not responsible since nothing has been created from that perspective. Creation occurs from within the perspectives of creation.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Right, the subject isn't responsible for war and the like, and since objectivity is just an imagined perspective, it also is not responsible since nothing has been created from that perspective. Creation occurs from within the perspectives of creation.

As usual you are getting yourself tied up in the knots of your confusion.

Indeed it is subjectivity that can be argued as (indirectly) responsible for war, yet the war itself, as is anything in existence; remains an object reality, that (as with all objective perspectives) consequentially needs to be negotiated. Therefore the objectivity of the war, unlike the subjectivity that conceptualised it, most certainly is not "an imagined perspective" as you so quaintly phrase it.

But yes - objectivity is not responsible for it isn't that kind of entity. Both objectivity and subjectivity are perspectives of existence, rather than creative forces as such.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

As usual you are getting yourself tied up in the knots of your confusion.

Indeed it is subjectivity that can be argued as (indirectly) responsible for war, yet the war itself, as is anything in existence; remains an object reality, that (as with all objective perspectives) consequentially needs to be negotiated. Therefore the objectivity of the war, unlike the subjectivity that conceptualised it, most certainly is not "an imagined perspective" as you so quaintly phrase it.

But yes - objectivity is not responsible for it isn't that kind of entity. Both objectivity and subjectivity are perspectives of existence, rather than creative forces as such.

Again, that's what I'm saying. Objective and subjective are perspectives taken by the person, which is itself an individuated perspective on the totality of creation, so it cannot be objectivity or hold a perspective as Intelligence itself, even if it ultimately IS intelligence. Intelligence itself (objectivity in this context) doesn't have it's own perspective. All perspectives are subjective.

IOW, Intelligence clothes itself in the individuated perspective so that it can HAVE a perspective at all, and it is necessarily a subjective perspective. Intelligence experiences through innumerable subjective perspectives, and creates from within those perspectives. Not the person creating, of course, but intelligence creating through perspectives on creation. The result is the apparent movement of life, but nobody and nothing is in a position to be responsible for that, nor is there any overall purpose for it.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Again, that's what I'm saying. Objective and subjective are perspectives taken by the person, which is itself an individuated perspective on the totality of creation, so it cannot be objectivity or hold a perspective as Intelligence itself, even if it ultimately IS intelligence. Intelligence itself (objectivity in this context) doesn't have it's own perspective. All perspectives are subjective.

All subjective perspectives - the great many that exist and generate perplexity, are entirely subjective. Yet INTELLIGENCE has only one perspective, for there can only be one objective perspective.

Again, "the person" has two dichotomous sources into his awareness - emotions (a great many in continual flux) and Intelligence (but one), so he will have at any moment (at least) one of a great many subjective perspectives .... and one (and only one) unchanging objective perspective.

The reality that we can't generally focus on the objective (INTELLIGENT) perspective, is a clear testimony to the internalised confusion that is set up and maintained through our dischordant emotions

Originally Posted by Arcanum

IOW, Intelligence clothes itself in the individuated perspective so that it can HAVE a perspective at all, and it is necessarily a subjective perspective.

INTELLIGENCE is not by any means an 'it', which would in turn suggest an inanimate unknowingness. So the remainder of your premise is clearly predicated upon a concept which is at the very least; insufficient in the extreme.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Intelligence experiences through innumerable subjective perspectives and creates from within those perspectives.

Not at all - you experience and create "through innumerable subjective perspectives" - as per your emotions. Yet you also have another aspect to your consciousness - Intelligence - in turn being a very different story and perspective; and in fact the power source of creation.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Not the person creating, of course, but intelligence creating through perspectives on creation.

Close yet insufficient. INTELLIGENCE is that intrinsic part of you WHO creates - with your co-operation. This then, is a joint effort, for your emotions must also be incorporated in the creativity.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

The result is the apparent movement of life, but nobody and nothing is in a position to be responsible for that, nor is there any overall purpose for it.

Well to be a little more honest - none that you yet recognise, huh?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

All subjective perspectives - the great many that exist and generate perplexity, are entirely subjective. Yet INTELLIGENCE has only one perspective, for there can only be one objective perspective.

Again, "the person" has two dichotomous sources into his awareness - emotions (a great many in continual flux) and Intelligence (but one), so he will have at any moment (at least) one of a great many subjective perspectives .... and one (and only one) unchanging objective perspective.

The reality that we can't generally focus on the objective (INTELLIGENT) perspective, is a clear testimony to the internalised confusion that is set up and maintained through our dischordant emotions

How can you, the person, have an objective perspective on the totality of creation? (Watching the Discovery channel a lot doesn't count.) No thing or non-thing can have a perspective on everything. 'God' is deaf, dumb and blind and can only see through your eyes, so keep em open.

Well to be a little more honest - none that you yet recognise, huh?

If you were more interested in looking than finding incorrectness, you might recognize it too.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Again, that's what I'm saying. Objective and subjective are perspectives taken by the person, which is itself an individuated perspective on the totality of creation, so it cannot be objectivity or hold a perspective as Intelligence itself, even if it ultimately IS intelligence. Intelligence itself (objectivity in this context) doesn't have it's own perspective. All perspectives are subjective.

IOW, Intelligence clothes itself in the individuated perspective so that it can HAVE a perspective at all, and it is necessarily a subjective perspective. Intelligence experiences through innumerable subjective perspectives, and creates from within those perspectives. Not the person creating, of course, but intelligence creating through perspectives on creation. The result is the apparent movement of life, but nobody and nothing is in a position to be responsible for that, nor is there any overall purpose for it.

Yes, those are of my thought too. I have not read this before anywhere. It is good to know that two minds come to the same understanding and the idea is pretty original. LOA?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

If you were more interested in looking than finding incorrectness, you might recognize it too.

His mission is to reject, ya know.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

How can you, the person, have an objective perspective on the totality of creation? (Watching the Discovery channel a lot doesn't count.)

I can ask an even more perplexing question, but that doesn't make it any more (or less) irrelevant than yours. The question - how can you, a single man have so many, conflicting, contrasting, confused - subjective perspectives on the totality of creation? Oh, and watching the discovery channel until you fall into a stupifying trance doesn't count.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

No thing or non-thing can have a perspective on everything. 'God' is deaf, dumb and blind and can only see through your eyes, so keep em open.

Again - no thing or non-thing AS PER YOUR UNDERSTANDING can have a perspective on everything. Yet your subjective perspective/s can be, and are - on everything, even if not all at the same time. Yet given enough time .... well, you can work out the rest, huh?

Your observations re. 'God' is an entirely different discussion, requiring a great deal of definition to say the least, so I'll let that one slide for the moment - if ok by you?

Originally Posted by Arcanum

If you were more interested in looking than finding incorrectness, you might recognize it too.

Oh wowsers, good one - so says he who has spent the past three or four hours seeking incorrectness in everything I've been posting.

Get real Arc, and you might recognise a few things as well.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Reefs

His mission is to reject, ya know.

I know. Can't get past the light sabers with a lot of peeps lately.

[Merrick1]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Thanks for trying to answer. Where does this idea come from?

Hi Arcanum,

I was away all day yesterday, and what a discussion has been going on in the meantime .

To try to answer your question:

To be honest, I don't know. But I experience it as a process of arising, staying for a while and then vanishing. And then perhaps arising again or another idea taking its place.

You see, to me answering questions like: "What consciousness is? , What the mind is? , What awareness is? , What Being is? , Where does this come from?, What Oneness is?" etc. requires a lot of self-inquiry. The answers must come from within if we don't want to be just parroting (I can't recall a more polite English word for a blind repetition of someone else's words). And it may take a while before we come to a deeper understanding of the true nature of things. Without this self-inquiry we remain mere philosophers with clever reasoning but little value. To me, such answers can't simply be find by logic.

So, my point is, as I have already said: There are many philosophers but few people who have gained a deeper understanding. I am not saying that you belong to them, I don't know you and I don't read much of these discourses, although sometimes I feel like making a remark.

And I am not saying that I have the answers either, even though I have been looking for them for a long time. So I use what I see as practical, what works for a person of my level of understanding and i am striving to understand more - through self-inquiry .

Merrick

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Merrick1

Hi Arcanum,

I was away all day yesterday, and what a discussion has been going on in the meantime .

To try to answer your question:

To be honest, I don't know. But I experience it as a process of arising, staying for a while and then vanishing. And then perhaps arising again or another idea taking its place.

You see, to me answering questions like: "What consciousness is? , What the mind is? , What awareness is? , What Being is? , Where does this come from?, What Oneness is?" etc. requires a lot of self-inquiry. The answers must come from within if we don't want to be just parroting (I can't recall a more polite English word for a blind repetition of someone else's words). And it may take a while before we come to a deeper understanding of the true nature of things. Without this self-inquiry we remain mere philosophers with clever reasoning but little value. To me, such answers can't simply be find by logic.

So, my point is, as I have already said: There are many philosophers but few people who have gained a deeper understanding. I am not saying that you belong to them, I don't know you and I don't read much of these discourses, although sometimes I feel like making a remark.

And I am not saying that I have the answers either, even though I have been looking for them for a long time. So I use what I see as practical, what works for a person of my level of understanding and i am striving to understand more - through self-inquiry .

Merrick

Hi Merrick
Yes, it's true that lots of folks would like to sound as though they realize more than they do, and many claim realization based on experiences they had or concepts they grasp fully. It's natural to want to believe we're more aware than we are, and I find most actually do believe it and are being sincere, and really there's no harm done.

What I was specifically addressing is the notion that oneness realization would mean that the one realizing this would no longer enjoy talking to others, perhaps because it seems tantamount to sitting in a room talking to yourself? I don't know.

We could say that relationship is what's going on here, whether it's relating to beauty, wonder, pain, loss, or another sentient creature like a person or animal. Life has an inherent interest in relating to life, and while it looks different when it is known that you are the intelligence that relates through all creatures, it never becomes a separate person relating to himself. What actually occurs is the withdrawing of identity from the separate person in the realization that the relating takes place, and has always taken place, quite by itself, and the identification was merely an idea overlayed onto this relating.

As such, the relating continues. There is no 'clear light' experience and the world doesn't disappear and the person doesn't become a mind reader or see himself as the same as other persons. The person is left to relate as a person relating to other persons, and there is simply the awareness of this relating, see? This is why no person ever becomes enlightened or merges with anything or becomes a conscious co-creator or the possessor of great knowledge or powers. The person continues being what it has always been; one of a nearly infinite number of expressions of what you are, still unique, wondrous and mysterious.

[Andras]

According to the Cabbala, Infinity (Oneness) is a very important concept. The undivided infinity of being (Atziluth), multiplies itself by another order of infinity and causes the infinity of specified, non-sequentialized meaning (Briah). In this state, Unitary being experiences the whole infinite variety of specific meanings, but without sequence or order. This is the archetypal, symbolic ocean, in which each drop reflects the whole and the whole is mirrored in each drop. It is a chaos of potentiality in which all things are not only possible, but also probable and actual.
This infinity of random meaning (Briah), multiplies itself by another order of infinity and causes the infinity of sequence and relationship (Yetzirah). This is the realm of symbol, of order, logic, emotion, thought -- the realm where one thing leads to another. This is also the realm of time, the essence of which is sequence.

This infinity of sequentialized meaning (Yetzirah), multiplies itself by another order of infinity and causes the infinity of spatial relationship (Assiah) and our familiar physical realm.

The first multiplication of The One Self -- the transition from the Atziluthic Unity of being, to the Braitic infinity of non-sequentialized meaning -- is described in the Genesis, chapter one, creation story. The second transition, from the Briatic infinity to the sequentialized Yetziratic infinity, is the topic of the Sepher Yetzirah. Thus the S.Y. is very orderly and systematic in its presentation and closely examines the structure of time ("eternity").

My conclusion is that Oneness, infinity only the realm de joure at the highest spheres and we as humans should strive to access and attain that level. Down on earth infinity exists only as an abstraction and polarity, decay (death) rules, on a simplistic level. The only escape is ascension which is everybody's birthright but will not be attained by reading acim repeatedly.

[Luciddd]

Well as Morpheus said, the only thing we experience are electromagnetic signals from the brain.

Andras, from my understanding it is through Bestowal that one moves into the whole again. The highest goal being the Ein Sof.

[Andras]

Do you base your world view on a Hollywood fiction? Our physical brain is a computer but it has its own cloud network, so to speak.....
According to the ancients (and I subscribe to this) OUR biology and whole nervous system is created and affected by our invisible selves. Our physical brain is extended to non-physical realms and that is where the "action" is, "down here" we only see the results and consequences that take place invisibly.

Originally Posted by Luciddd

Well as Morpheus said, the only thing we experience are electromagnetic signals from the brain.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I know. Can't get past the light sabers with a lot of peeps lately.

Use The Force, Arcanum ...

[Beingist]

Okay, now hold on...

Subjective Reality means that one is responsible for war (i.e., cause), and

Objective Reality means that one is not responsible for war, but is nonethless affected by it (i.e., effect),

so ....

... Free Will discussion! Yay!!

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by Andras

Do you base your world view on a Hollywood fiction? Our physical brain is a computer but it has its own cloud network, so to speak.....
According to the ancients (and I subscribe to this) OUR biology and whole nervous system is created and affected by our invisible selves. Our physical brain is extended to non-physical realms and that is where the "action" is, "down here" we only see the results and consequences that take place invisibly.

No, but this one is true. Everything we experience are electromagnetic signals from the brain. Obviously I dont base it on the matrix movie but its a good addition. Much of the movie was based on real existing philosophies and some facts. Among the facts (you can add your local skeptic and he will agree) is that everything we experience among the 5 senses are electromagnetic signals from the brain.

And well, technically this could be among many one of the explanations of subjective reality.

[Luciddd]

It depends on what it really is, is brain a movie projector that projects as "external reality" any possibility all of them real out of a myraid of possibilities, that we see through our senses as external reality? If so, if you could see reality as it really is, the only thing you would see, would be random waves interacting upon each other and collapsing, a sea of vibration without any definite state.

Or is our brain a movie projector that is reading already definite bits of information and effectively giving us an accuarate image of reality?. In this case though still reality would really look like no more than waves collpsing said waves had an already set pattern and information.

So are we making up our own movies? Or are we actually projecting an already inserted movie tape?

EDIT:

About "other people"? I dont know, guess each would have their own movie projector, it would be irrelevant if we are already "playing" the same movie that was pre-set. But if we make up our own movies and project them outwardly, how would that explain other people and the consensus reality?

Or is it, that really when we interact with other people we are just exchanging common perceptions? Questions, questions, questions.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Again, that's what I'm saying. Objective and subjective are perspectives taken by the person, which is itself an individuated perspective on the totality of creation, so it cannot be objectivity or hold a perspective as Intelligence itself, even if it ultimately IS intelligence. Intelligence itself (objectivity in this context) doesn't have it's own perspective. All perspectives are subjective.

IOW, Intelligence clothes itself in the individuated perspective so that it can HAVE a perspective at all, and it is necessarily a subjective perspective. Intelligence experiences through innumerable subjective perspectives, and creates from within those perspectives. Not the person creating, of course, but intelligence creating through perspectives on creation. The result is the apparent movement of life, but nobody and nothing is in a position to be responsible for that, nor is there any overall purpose for it.

Exactly. The idea of one objective storehouse the person taps into to download all the data of the universe is just too appealing to the scholarly mind though.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Hi Merrick
Yes, it's true that lots of folks would like to sound as though they realize more than they do, and many claim realization based on experiences they had or concepts they grasp fully. It's natural to want to believe we're more aware than we are, and I find most actually do believe it and are being sincere, and really there's no harm done.

What I was specifically addressing is the notion that oneness realization would mean that the one realizing this would no longer enjoy talking to others, perhaps because it seems tantamount to sitting in a room talking to yourself? I don't know.

We could say that relationship is what's going on here, whether it's relating to beauty, wonder, pain, loss, or another sentient creature like a person or animal. Life has an inherent interest in relating to life, and while it looks different when it is known that you are the intelligence that relates through all creatures, it never becomes a separate person relating to himself. What actually occurs is the withdrawing of identity from the separate person in the realization that the relating takes place, and has always taken place, quite by itself, and the identification was merely an idea overlayed onto this relating.

As such, the relating continues. There is no 'clear light' experience and the world doesn't disappear and the person doesn't become a mind reader or see himself as the same as other persons. The person is left to relate as a person relating to other persons, and there is simply the awareness of this relating, see? This is why no person ever becomes enlightened or merges with anything or becomes a conscious co-creator or the possessor of great knowledge or powers. The person continues being what it has always been; one of a nearly infinite number of expressions of what you are, still unique, wondrous and mysterious.

Arcanum, that is brilliant. I seriously think you should put all those you have written in a book, and I will be the first one to buy it. I am not referring to financial gains but it is a way to help others, like myself, to understand.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Use The Force, Arcanum ...

Ohhhhh, why me no think of that??

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Ohhhhh, why me no think of that??

Could it have been that you were trying to think of something in the first place?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

It depends on what it really is, is brain a movie projector that projects as "external reality" any possibility all of them real out of a myraid of possibilities, that we see through our senses as external reality? If so, if you could see reality as it really is, the only thing you would see, would be random waves interacting upon each other and collapsing, a sea of vibration without any definite state.

Or is our brain a movie projector that is reading already definite bits of information and effectively giving us an accuarate image of reality?. In this case though still reality would really look like no more than waves collpsing said waves had an already set pattern and information.

So are we making up our own movies? Or are we actually projecting an already inserted movie tape?

EDIT:

About "other people"? I dont know, guess each would have their own movie projector, it would be irrelevant if we are already "playing" the same movie that was pre-set. But if we make up our own movies and project them outwardly, how would that explain other people and the consensus reality?

Or is it, that really when we interact with other people we are just exchanging common perceptions? Questions, questions, questions.

The brain, people, everything that appears, is part of that 'projection', eh? Everything/everybody is happening in that 'projector'. When you watch a movie, there isn't really a 'consensus' going on in the film, it's just that it's all coming from the film.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

The brain, people, everything that appears, is part of that 'projection', eh? Everything/everybody is happening in that 'projector'. When you watch a movie, there isn't really a 'consensus' going on in the film, it's just that it's all coming from the film.

Precisely. And, it's all coming from one projector.

(Which is weird, Arc, sometimes, you can really nail it for me, and other times, it's like a 747 at 36,000 feet, while I'm studying ants.)

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

The brain, people, everything that appears, is part of that 'projection', eh? Everything/everybody is happening in that 'projector'. When you watch a movie, there isn't really a 'consensus' going on in the film, it's just that it's all coming from the film.

This is a problem I challenge anyone to reason about subjective vs objective reality.

Let me ask it this way. Imagine that one day you wake up, and you are able to decide in which way your brain "decodes" all of the electromagnetic outputs which control nose, touch, ear, sight, smell, taste, time and space which is what allow you to know "reality". Not in some astral projection, OBE or something, but in your physical existence.

You snap your fingers and are able to appear in front of you an apple and eat it, snap them again and have in front of you an endless field when before you were sitting in your room. 100% real physically.

How real would these realities be? How real is that apple and that field? Are you by being able to effectively decide the 100% of your perception and convincing yourself in every aspect of it, effectively living it, indeed picking quantum states of possibilities which are different but real from the previous reality? In the same way as how a radio can by changing its signal tune into real stations of music?

Or would you simply be a looney? How would the "other people" percieve you after that? Would you simply disappear from their reality since you are "tuning" into a different reality they arent and thus you would interact with "other people" that were already in that sphere? Would the other people too experience the "shift" and thus you would appear as them as a "supernatural being"? Or would they simply see you as a looney who is acting like one who acts on a play, and you never left your room and you are just making yourself the "make me laugh"?

Reflect on this.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Exactly. The idea of one objective storehouse the person taps into to download all the data of the universe is just too appealing to the scholarly mind though.

It is! Knowledge is power, so omniscience means mucho personal power. Nobody's interested in knowing nothing.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Exactly. The idea of one objective storehouse the person taps into to download all the data of the universe is just too appealing to the scholarly mind though.

It's a storehouse (simply a term used to describe infinite possibilities) that we all tap into all the time we are awake, and very possibly whilst asleep as well. Again, it is this freely available infinite spiritual storehouse that provides us all the knowledge to achieve anything at all.

Do you think that someone invented the computer as an example? Think again.

Just as the physical raw materials for the hardware were always freely available in the finite physical storehouse of the earth of planet Earth, yet required a non-physical (spiritual) blueprint (software) to organise it into the finished product, so too the (spiritual) software, the knowledge to design the blueprint was always freely available in the infinite eternal spiritual storehouse, yet similarly required time, attention and investigation to source the required non-physical bits and pieces prior to that knowledge being applied to organise and assemble the earth into hardware.

So the physical raw materials were always available, and too was the non-physical (spiritual) data - all ready and waiting for retrieval. Therefore the entire computer was always in existence, and only required man to be activated by the second pre-eminent input into his consciousness, which in combination, motivated his anatomy to CREATE the finished product.

Therefore the folk who 'developed' the technology for the hardware and software that we use today, merely investigated into the finite and infinite storehouses of possibilities, then piece by piece retrieved the parts that they required for both necessary halves of his project, and subsequently followed the blueprint from one, that they imagined was fully the results of their efforts - not an insignificant portion of the development process it must be said, and for which they took all the credit the law would permit, to mould the physical bits and pieces that also were always in existence.

If we had to pay for the information as retrieved from this infinite spiritual storehouse as we have to pay to access the finite physical storehouse, we might have a little thankfulness and respect for the non physical stuff that we are using constantly. But alas - it's entirely free - until the government comes up with a plan to tax us for it, at least.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Thunder

Arcanum, that is brilliant. I seriously think you should put all those you have written in a book, and I will be the first one to buy it. I am not referring to financial gains but it is a way to help others, like myself, to understand.

Thanks, Thunder. Lots of friends encourage that, but motivation is a bit of a problem it seems, since there is no doubt that peeps will get what they need when they need it.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Could it have been that you were trying to think of something in the first place?

That might be the problemo.