Subjective Reality vs. Solipsism (Blog)

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Max Power

Steve is starting to change his definition or SR, which only confuses people more. This means that all bodies including yours are in the dream, but what it fails to say is that the dreamer is the real you. The dreamer is not a shared state and you can assume this because when all the other bodies leave the dream, there is always still one observation point, always one observer left and that one observer can never leave because that one observer is consciousness's single point of reference for the entire dream.

Consciousness creates all the dream characters including the observer, but there is only one observation. The entire existance is a game of perceived seperation and consciousness creates people to allude seperation, but it ultimately is one thing, not 7 billion things.

Max

I'm so glad I'm not the only one seeing things this way.

Well... actually I *am* the only one, but that's my point exactly.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

You're equating ego with consciousness. Steve is not: he's explicitly separating them.

Consciousness is the domain of the ego. I am not saying that to argue. It is just something that my thinking evolved to eventually. I also found reference to it in "A Course in Miracles".

"The text explains how consciousness is the domain of the ego, and was indeed the first split introduced into the mind after the separation appeared to have happened (T-3.IV.2:1-2). This state of consciousness is synonymous with the split mind and exists beyond the body. Therefore, as thought, it survives our physical death. This can be a comforting idea as long as we can identify ourselves as thought, which is a major theme of A Course in Miracles. However, to the extent that we still cling to our physical identity we shall be fearful."

also

"Consciousness, the level of perception, was the first split introduced into the mind after the separation" (T.3.IV.2:1)" and thus "the domain of the ego" (T.3.IV.2:2)"

Not to say that everyone should believe ACIM, but I'm just saying that just by thinking about it logically, consciousness HAS to be the domain of the EGO. To be conscious means to be self aware. To be self aware means to be aware that we are self. Self = ego.

I think a lot of people are stuck in the idea that our ego is our body. In fact, it's not like that. Ego is at the realm of consciousness. If we die, our ego still survives. You can't just go kill your physical body and assume that kills your ego. Otherwise, we could all just go and commit suicide in order to become enlightened and ego-less. It is abundantly clear to me that our physical bodies don't create the ego. The ego creates the body.

What does this have to do with SR? Everything. If Steve thinks that Steve Ego = his body and Paul Ego = my body I disagree with him. In reality, there is only ONE EGO and it is Consciousness. Once consciousness rids itself of it's own one ego, it becomes God.

[Radog99]

I think the reason that this is such a difficult concept to grasp is that most people have never had a transcendent experience. Most have never "waken up" from our average day-to-day reality. It's been said that you can experience this type of transcendence by engaging in meditation, or having a NDE, or something like that.

Everyone can relate to the whole "lucid dreaming" analogy, because everyone who has ever had a dream has eventually "woke up" back to average everyday reality, and from that perspective can see how the dream wasn't really real.

I think the key here is to learn to have a truly transcendent experience. One should be sufficient, yes? All it would take is one instance of "waking up" to see that the world is really a like a dream after all.

Other than getting curious and trying LOA and subjective reality belief systems, does anyone have any suggestions on how to do this? Anyone ever had a transcendent experience that left believing without a shadow of a doubt that yes, this world I have been living in and believing to be "real" is just another layer of the dream? Steve? Erin?

I'd be interested in hearing if this has been the case for someone...

[ExploringTheMatrix]

Originally Posted by Radog99

Other than getting curious and trying LOA and subjective reality belief systems, does anyone have any suggestions on how to do this? Anyone ever had a transcendent experience that left believing without a shadow of a doubt that yes, this world I have been living in and believing to be "real" is just another layer of the dream? Steve? Erin?

I'd be interested in hearing if this has been the case for someone...

My experience came several months ago. I was out at a concert with a friend and after getting stoned, she underwent through a major personality shift. She went from being a normal stressed-out run of the mill human to a glowing child. We were talking about how she could stay in that state indefinitely - what sort of beliefs and whatnot were stopping her. And I kept wondering was this the real her or some child identity that she was stuck in from the past.

So I started working with her using The Work, trying to make it easier for her to be who she wanted to be. Then I looked at it from another angle using some identity processes I had read about on the Internet. And as I started to look, I realized that whatever I decided was true would be born out. If I believed the normal stressed-out woman was the real her, I would find it. If I believed the child was the real her, I'd find that too. Or I could believe both or neither were the real her. At that point I realized I was the focal point of my reality, that there could was no absolute truth outside of what I decided. To me that was enlightenment. I had expected fireworks and bliss, but all it felt like was that I no longer was identified with the body and everything around me was sort of unreal.

There are several ways you can have a similar realization. One is to do some spiritual study and attend a satsang or do the old "Who am I?" questioning until you have the experience of "I am". From what I've heard from other people, you often will reach a point at which you hear another person talking or a bird singing and realize it's your voice.

But what I'd recommend is to undergo a major belief shift. Choose two distinct and contrasting beliefs like "People don't like me" and "People like me". Adopt one belief then go hang out with some friends or family members for a day. Then the next day, switch to the other one and see how they react. Not only will you notice a major difference in how they treat you, but so long as you don't have any attention on their previous behavior, it can even be like they have amnesia about the previous belief. They'll never even remember being nasty to you the day before unless you bring it up. To me this is the biggest indication, making inward changes and seeing them reflected in how the people around me think and act - shifts that you would not expect to see in an objective reality, especially in a 24hr span.

[Konfucius]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

1. Consider that you may in fact be just as fake as the other dream characters. You're all just phony projections, and none of you are real. Consider this both for your dreams and your waking reality.
2. Now consider that the other characters may be just as real, conscious, and independent as you are, both while you're dreaming and awake.
3. Finally, consider that both possibilities can exist simultaneously without being in conflict, both in the dream world and the waking world. Each is simply a lower order projection of a higher order, multi-dimensional reality.

Steve that quote just changed my life. Gave me chills and everything. I actually tried stepping away from my ego for the first time ever (it is a very large ego lol). Thank you so much for that break down.

-K

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

[*]Finally, consider that both possibilities can exist simultaneously without being in conflict, both in the dream world and the waking world. Each is simply a lower order projection of a higher order, multi-dimensional reality.[/LIST]

Are you saying that the reality your ego creates is one, and the reality my ego creates is a different reality? And they co-mesh together in a way? ie. Each Ego gets his/her own "holodeck" to play with, but they sometimes co-mesh together?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Are you saying that the reality your ego creates is one, and the reality my ego creates is a different reality? And they co-mesh together in a way? ie. Each Ego gets his/her own "holodeck" to play with, but they sometimes co-mesh together?

Not quite. I'm saying those egos are merely filters of a larger consciousness, like a right eye and a left eye. They're looking at the same thing -- at consciousness itself -- but they're seeing different aspects due to the nature of each filter.

Each ego perceives only a limited projection of consciousness, a tiny slice of the true multi-dimensional reality.

The fun part is when those egos interact. "I see this." "I've got this piece." "Hey, everyone. Look at this over here." Then we all try to make sense of it at the ego level.

Of course, at the individual ego level, reality makes no sense because the ego's perspective is too narrow. It's like a single eyeball trying to understand the visible universe... with no assistance from other observers, telescopes, microscopes, etc.

Subjective reality is the perspective that pulls back from the individual egos and aims to see the big picture, which simultaneously incompasses all egoic perspectives yet is independent of them, including the first-person perspective (which is where solipsism gets stuck).

SR recognizes that a pointer towards an egoless perspective is the act of becoming as aware as possible of the full perspective of the individual ego. No detail can be ignored. Everything is significant because it's a piece to the larger puzzle.

What happens to the ego after embracing SR is that it takes on a different role. It's no longer regarded as one's true identity. Instead it becomes a tool for exploration and interaction with the physical manifestation of consciousness.

[songwriter]

Well, some say "Steve is me, my wife is me" etc... There are different subjects with different consciensce... but all consciousness are tied, united.... so both ways to see it are right...

Steve is me too. Because as all the consciousness are tied I have a part he has too. But I don't shape Steve or you... or your dog... yes, a little... but there are lots of subjects with consciousness connected between them...

It's like the Internet... we're all connected... there's a lot of web pages... we can alter them... some more than others... I do not shape Steve's web. But well, yes, a little of it. As he would shape what I would write in other places...

"We're one but we're not the same, we've got to carry each other, carry each other, one...."

I would say "I'm connected to Steve, and to you, and to your dog, and to everyone, but I'm me... or..."

I has too parts

The I that's here. And the I that's everywhere... on everyone.
"I am here as you here and we are all together..."

The conscious and the collective subconscious. Everyone's partially independent and responsible of himself and partially responsible of the others and dependent...

Or maybe no! lol... just my point of view... (or is it yours?)

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by songwriter

It's like the Internet... we're all connected... there's a lot of web pages... we can alter them... some more than others... I do not shape Steve's web. But well, yes, a little of it. As he would shape what I would write in other places...

Every ego is like a different search engine.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Not quite. I'm saying those egos are merely filters of a larger consciousness, like a right eye and a left eye. They're looking at the same thing -- at consciousness itself -- but they're seeing different aspects due to the nature of each filter.

I don't buy it and it sounds like a common (human) ego based delusion grounded in fear of truth.

Consciousness may create an observer ego that is always present, but every other person in awareness doesn't have a seperate ego that is a filter for the same consciousness.

People think that because they see lots of other people then those other people are filters for the same consciousness and that is a fear based reaction, being afraid of a fact that while consciousness is a single entity, when viewed from the limited human POV and the 5 senses it envokes fear.

Consciousness isn't human, just like god isn't human.

Max

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

What happens to the ego after embracing SR is that it takes on a different role. It's no longer regarded as one's true identity. Instead it becomes a tool for exploration and interaction with the physical manifestation of consciousness.

This is a quote from one of your first posts about Subjective Reality:

"In a truly subjective universe, there is nothing outside your own consciousness — no world, no bodies, no brain. Suppose I ask you the question, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” With an objective belief structure, you might say yes, but you might also say no, depending on your views on quantum physics. However, if you believed in subjective reality, you have to reject the question entirely. You’d say that there’s no such thing as a tree outside your awareness. That tree doesn’t even exist. Nor does the forest for that matter. If you are not there to observe it, it doesn’t exist at all. Without consciousness there is no existence."

I'm sorry, but it really sounds like you've changed your mind on subjective reality from the time you made this post, right?

Under you new way of thinking, the tree WOULD exist, the forest WOULD exist because one of the 7 billion people in the world, or 1 of the Zillion Animals in the world, or one of the Zillion insects in the world, or 1 of the Zillion bacteria in the world which make up consciousness WOULD BE THERE TO EXPERIENCE THE TREE FALLING.

Or are you saying that only human beings are conscious?

I get your current view on Subjective Reality. I just don't think it's congruent with your original view on SR. Also, I think your new view is not as accurate as your old view.

Based on your new view of SR, you might as well just summarize it as "YOU (Paul) are actually part of a consciousness that's greater than you, and so are the other 7 billion people on earth. THE END."


Also look at this:

"Why do I identify with this particular body then and not someone else’s?

So you can experience physical reality from a first-person perspective. This allows you to interact with the physical universe on a whole new level, one that isn’t possible if you remain in “god mode.” A physical avatar gives you a richer experience with more possibilties. But you are not restricted to only working through that avatar except to the degree you believe you are. True “god mode” is still accessible to you.
"

Here you're saying that consciousness identifies itself with just one avatar. This is how I experience my life. If that is so, that I only experience ONE avatar, that would imply that there only IS one avatar. You say that it is possible to change your beliefs to experience two avatars or more, but until such time as I experience that, would it not be true that there is only one avatar?

[Savage]

I haven't changed my mind on SR, only the language I use to describe it. The "you" I'm describing in that earlier post is from the viewpoint of consciousness itself, not the individual ego.

I notice you're also sticking to the objective assumption of one view, one identity -- I know it's a hard habit to break -- but in SR there's no assumption that your identity is fixed to a particular model. So the viewpoint that multiple egos exist is just as valid as the viewpoint that there's only one ego. They're merely different perspectives on the same reality, but neither is a truth unto itself because the ego (or multiple egos) is part of the projection of consciousness, i.e. part of the dream.

If you try to fix the properties of the dream in an objective sense, it will continue to disappoint you.

[Angela]

Steve, I liked that in your article you reminded the reader that it would be more accurate to call subjective reality a perspective, rather than a belief.

I think the use of those words is powerful for a few reasons, not least that it's easier for people to identify with what they call a belief, and to remain unattached to a "perspective" and therefore be more free to use it as a tool when it comes in useful.

I also enjoy the tone you manage -- I'm not sure exactly how you do it -- of confiding in your reader, "this is what works for me, and I'm happy to talk about it with you, AND you are free to take it or leave it." It's a friendly tone! And it contrasts starkly with a "This is The Truth" approach.

Your ability to generate a space of freedom in your writing is inspiring. Thanks!

Lots of love,
Angela

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

What happens to the ego after embracing SR is that it takes on a different role. It's no longer regarded as one's true identity. Instead it becomes a tool for exploration and interaction with the physical manifestation of consciousness.

Thanks for saying this. Many want to ditch their ego or run away from it. The problem is the ego has been given the job of creator, a job which it is not outfitted to do. The consciousness is the creator.

Attention: egos can now relax.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I haven't changed my mind on SR, only the language I use to describe it. The "you" I'm describing in that earlier post is from the viewpoint of consciousness itself, not the individual ego.

Maybe you can follow my train of thought this way:
(1) Does this consciousness you speak of have an Ego, or is consciousness pure (God)?

(2) If it's pure God, there can be no Ego. There can be no "imperfection", there can be "nothing to learn" because God already knows everything. God just IS, no need to experience what charity feels like, what this feels like and
that feels like and what this sounds like etc. A Course in Miracles and common sense would say that Consciousness is EGO. Once you rid consciousness of EGO it becomes GOD once again.

So for consciousness to exist it must be where the Ego starts, Yes?

(3) You believe that there is only 1 consciousness. Yes?

(4) If there is only 1 consciousness, there can only be 1 ego. Yes?

Now. I agree that you experience this Ego as Steve. I experience this Ego as Paul. However, I propose that we are the SAME EGO. For whatever reason, this Ego is currently living inside Paul in this very milli-instance writing this post. It is aware of Paul, his hands, it sees through his eyes and sees the screen through his eyes. No other "people" are out there at this milli-moment, just Paul. Nothing else exists except this one Ego who right now this milli-instant is paying attention to Paul and what Paul is doing, nothing else. Nothing can be learned, discovered, experienced in this milli-instant except throught the eyes of Paul. Paul can only grow his awareness to the point where this one shared EGO learns the most looking through Paul's eyes.

As Steve, of course you have the same experience except from your point of view (reading, not writing this post), however YOU are actually ME and vice versa. There is no STEVE EGO and PAUL EGO, there is just EGO and it's BOTH OF US. When it "pays attention" through me, NOTHING ELSE exists except me. When it "pays attention" through you, NOTHING ELSE exists except you.

Why is this an empowering point of view for me?

Because, when EGO sees through me, NOTHING out there exists. EVERYTHING out there is being created this very instant just for me. Therefore if I see something "going on out there", it's actually "going on in here". If I see a mother lecturing her kid on something, I don't think "That kid needs to learn a lesson" I think "I need to learn a lesson here that has to do with that kid learning a lesson". Do you see what I mean?

It essentially means that *IF* Ego (U Call it COnsciousness) is VIEWING something THROUGH my eyes it means that IT IS IMPORTANT THAT I SEE THAT THING THAT IT IS SHOWING ME. The most unimportant of things like a raindrop of my forehead is there for a REASON because I (EGO) created it to be there in this EXACT millisecond on my forehead.

Make sense, or no?

[Savage]

@impaul: I understand your questions. Essentially you're attempting to objectify what you call God, i.e. label it and assign it a fixed, objective perspective or belief framework.

God (or consciousness) is independent of perspective, so to attempt to objectify it under a fixed model will likely be a bit frustrating for you. The seemingly paradoxical thing about SR is that it's the perspective that recognizes this.

Consider your first question, "Does God have an ego?" You're asking whether a perspective-independent concept has a perspective. That's an strangely phrased question. To me it's like asking whether time has an apple. You could argue yes or no, depending on where you look. But the best answer may be that an apple is a way of looking at time, just as the ego is a way of looking at God. So the ego is a viewport into God, but I wouldn't technically say it's a component of God itself (although such a statement wouldn't be entirely inaccurate).

Your remaining questions continue along the line of thinking of one consciousness, one fixed perspective. That's IMO an unreasonable and limiting assumption, both from an SR and OR perspective.

You seem to equate consciousness and ego, but I don't equate them any more than I equate time with apples. Consciousness is perspective-independent, while ego is a perspective.

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Every ego is like a different search engine.

I've never understood what "ego" is, too many definitions...

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by songwriter

I've never understood what "ego" is, too many definitions...

Same here, which is why I never do anything but try to clarify between people in these discussions.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Consider your first question, "Does God have an ego?" You're asking whether a perspective-independent concept has a perspective. That's an strangely phrased question.

No, I'm not asking if God has an Ego. I'm asking if the thing that you call Consciousness is Ego. My point was that it must, otherwise it would be God (which is Egoless).

If I don't understand what you mean by Consciousness, God, Ego, "You", then it's hard to understand your articles. If for example by Consciousness you mean God / Universe / Pure Spirit that's different than a Consciousness that has an Ego.

Your remaining questions continue along the line of thinking of one consciousness, one fixed perspective. That's IMO an unreasonable and limiting assumption, both from an SR and OR perspective.

You seem to equate consciousness and ego, but I don't equate them any more than I equate time with apples. Consciousness is perspective-independent, while ego is a perspective.

From this I would venture a guess that when you say the word "Consciousness" you're referring to God. Meaning, the thing that just IS, has no duality, no fear, nothing to learn, etc. It just IS.

My definition of consciousness is more closer to the definition found in "A Course in Miracles" which labels consciousness as the domain of the Ego. Meaning, it is a part of God that looked at itself from a dualistic point of view and became conscious of itself and thus began to exist. Consciousness is conscious (SELF aware), while God just IS. Meaning, God doesn't look at himself and say "I am God", he just says "I AM".

Kind of hard to explain.

[Seth 2]

impaul99, I recognize your frustration. I knew you were in for trouble when I saw your “armwrestling scenario” question. It’s like you’re trying to pigeonhole Steve into answering ONE way, so you can feel like “ah-ha, I get it now.” But no matter how you try to pin him down, he evades you every time.

What are you trying to do? To me, it looks like you’re trying to fit Steve’s ideas into your own belief system. You sound like you’ve read a ton of material, and you’re trying to weave it all together into some masterpiece.

Think of Bruce Lee’s thing about the cups. If you want to fill your cup with Steve’s cup, you must first empty yours. Stop trying to fit EVERYTHING into your cup. You can’t! Does that help?

I agree that it sounds like Steve has reduced his beliefs to “Everyone is a droplet in the ocean of consciousness. You’re both an ocean and a droplet, get it?” I find that very under-whelming. But it doesn’t matter. I like reading Steve’s writing.

Here, try this perspective: Can you read Steve’s blog and just enjoy it? Stop trying to understand everything and sort everything out. You’re only entangling yourself worse in a web of logic. Do you see that more logic is not going to help you?

I’m certain Angela was being authentic in her last post, but as a passive-aggressive argument, it’s a stunning work of art. She appears to ignore the heated discussion in the thread, but compliments Steve on the exact points you are missing! “I also enjoy the tone you manage -- I'm not sure exactly how you do it -- of confiding in your reader, "this is what works for me, and I'm happy to talk about it with you, AND you are free to take it or leave it." It's a friendly tone! And it contrasts starkly with a "This is The Truth" approach.” Zing!

If you understand Angela’s post, then you’ll see that taking a “This is The Truth” or even a “What is The Truth” approach with Steve will always fail. Take it from me!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Seth 2

Think of Bruce Lee’s thing about the cups. If you want to fill your cup with Steve’s cup, you must first empty yours. Stop trying to fit EVERYTHING into your cup. You can’t! Does that help?

Actually, the trick is to get a new cup. I've done it lots.

You don't have to unlearn everything you once knew in order to learn a new system; all you have to do is be willing to wait for the understanding to come as it will from the new source without attempting to mix it into the old system immediately.

That comes after, when you find a bowl. Of rice. And you eat it. And wash it.

Joshu says, Wash your bowl

It's a trick you learn when you learn languages: you don't forget English to learn Chinese; you just have to stop expecting plural nouns and stuff.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Actually, the trick is to get a new cup. I've done it lots.

You don't have to unlearn everything you once knew in order to learn a new system; all you have to do is be willing to wait for the understanding to come as it will from the new source without attempting to mix it into the old system immediately.

That cup-wielding model is part of the problem, since it tries to objectify experience. One cup = one fixed perspective. The cup is essentially the ego, a container that defines and constrains a given perspective. But a cup cannot hold the cupless perspective.

[songwriter]

so ego is the container... the container of the conscious perspective, of each conscios, every ego every little conscious... it would the computers in the internet allegory, Michael.

[munish]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

You don't have to unlearn everything you once knew in order to learn a new system;

Infact it is the other way round ,as far as learning the truth is concerned.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Seth 2

impaul99, I recognize your frustration. I knew you were in for trouble when I saw your “armwrestling scenario” question. It’s like you’re trying to pigeonhole Steve into answering ONE way, so you can feel like “ah-ha, I get it now.” But no matter how you try to pin him down, he evades you every time.

I was at a training course last weekend, where the teacher was asked a question. She answered "Perhaps." The student re-phrased the question. She answered "Yes, I understand what you're asking. The answer is perhaps." So the student tried again and got the same answer.

I'm going to label Steve's answers to me as "Non-responsive." just like the teacher. Why did the teacher not respond to the student? Because the question wasn't relevant to the test we were preparing for, and the answer would just confuse the student even more. Also, on a few questions I know that the teacher wasn't allowed to answer due to regulations. Also, I also know on some of the questions she didn't even know the answer, but instead of saying "I don't know." she just said "Perhaps." Such is the nature of teachers.

What are you trying to do? To me, it looks like you’re trying to fit Steve’s ideas into your own belief system. You sound like you’ve read a ton of material, and you’re trying to weave it all together into some masterpiece.

Absolutely. The formula I follow is to learn something new, understand it, see if it has an empowering effect on my life, if so incorporate it, if not - discard it. I do not judge, however, if something doesn't fit into my life. I am well aware of the fact that not everything that empowers me will empower others. I only seek to understand.

Think of Bruce Lee’s thing about the cups. If you want to fill your cup with Steve’s cup, you must first empty yours. Stop trying to fit EVERYTHING into your cup. You can’t! Does that help?

Yes, Bruce Lee is a personal hero of mine. He also said that Jeet Kune Do must mould itself around you, you should not mould yourself around Jeet Kune Do.

I will never "empty my cup" and fill it with someone elses beliefs if they don't make sense to me. Steve's Blog is "Personal Development for Smart People". I do not believe he expects his readers to just take what he says at face value, without questioning it, without asking questions about it, etc. I think he expects his readers to only take that which makes sense to them. If not, he would disable comments on his posts, and would have never started a forum to discuss his posts. If he just wanted people to take what he says as Gospel, he would be a preacher not a teacher, and I don't think that's what he intends.

I would never do that to anyone. I always like to tell people to use their own common sense and take what they like, and discard the rest. If you don't do that you'll end up with some schmuck who jumps off the building and kills himself leaving a note saying "I totally understood your article, and I no longer believe in gravity so I decided to test it out. Hope this works!"

I agree that it sounds like Steve has reduced his beliefs to “Everyone is a droplet in the ocean of consciousness. You’re both an ocean and a droplet, get it?” I find that very under-whelming. But it doesn’t matter. I like reading Steve’s writing.

I kind of have this question when reading personal development material. It is "So what? How does this empower/help me or anyone else?" If it doesn't, I just label it as "Interesting, but not very useful for me right now."

I don't read Steve's Blog for entertainment. I can go and watch a movie for that, or play a video game or hang out with my wife, or go outside and play. I read his blog in hopes that I learn something. That goes for anything else I read. So I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm just saying that I try to get as much value as I can from his material. That is why I ask questions if I don't understand something.

Here, try this perspective: Can you read Steve’s blog and just enjoy it? Stop trying to understand everything and sort everything out. You’re only entangling yourself worse in a web of logic. Do you see that more logic is not going to help you?

Can't. My brain is broken. It wants to understand everything. It's like I was born that way or something. It doesn't mean I have to only understand things logically, but I do try to understand things.

I’m certain Angela was being authentic in her last post, but as a passive-aggressive argument, it’s a stunning work of art. She appears to ignore the heated discussion in the thread, but compliments Steve on the exact points you are missing! “I also enjoy the tone you manage -- I'm not sure exactly how you do it -- of confiding in your reader, "this is what works for me, and I'm happy to talk about it with you, AND you are free to take it or leave it." It's a friendly tone! And it contrasts starkly with a "This is The Truth" approach.” Zing!

If you understand Angela’s post, then you’ll see that taking a “This is The Truth” or even a “What is The Truth” approach with Steve will always fail. Take it from me!

Point taken.

In the end, after all this discussion I came to the realization that Steve and I are pretty much describing the exact same thing from two different points of view. The important things we agree on are:

(1) Anything is possible.
(2) All limits are self imposed.
(3) All physical matter, energy, thoughts, and everything else exists within a container, and that container is consciousness.
(4) Can Steve defy the laws of gravity and fly? Perhaps.
(5) Would Paul win an arm wrestle with Steve? Most definitely. He can fly over here if he doesn't believe me.
(6) The most powerful force in the universe is a sense of humour.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by impaul99

(5) Would Paul win an arm wrestle with Steve? Most definitely. He can fly over here if he doesn't believe me.

Just be sure to do me left-handed. Otherwise, over too quickly.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Oh, Steve. I truly hope that was a reference to The Princess Bride. Because it just doesn't get any better than that.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Just be sure to do me left-handed. Otherwise, over too quickly.

I predict this will be the all time favorite Steve Pavlina quote of all time.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Oh, Steve. I truly hope that was a reference to The Princess Bride. Because it just doesn't get any better than that.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

"Oh, well, thank you very much, very nice of you. Your vote of confidence is overwhelming. "

Adrienne