Subjective Reality vs. Solipsism (Blog)

[songwriter]

I'll try again with ego, this time with maths.

Me=Ego+ Collective Subsconcious (the conscience with right beliefs that unites all, and that has the power to create, altering the reality)

The better my beliefs are the bigger my second half will become and the smaller my ego... so my ego are... my wrong beliefs or so... the death of the ego would be the Perfection in Beliefs.

[OlderWiser]

Originally Posted by Radog99

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

I've had trancendental experiences. The most recent was a couple weeks ago. I was walking around in a state of bliss, and I was just absolutely cognizant that the world I was walking in was an illusion. I was acutely "lucid", as it were, the same way you are in a lucid dream, where you look around at the dream world and can see that it's a dream.

I could see (in my mind's eye, not with my physical eyes) "trails" of energy with every move I or others made (sort of like mouse trails on a computer). I understood completely that the material world is a sort of shared consciousness.

It's very difficult to put into words, actually, but the experience is seared into my mind perfectly and forever more.

[YUDoodat]

So, to get back to one of Steve's early posts in this thread where he said essentially, Think of your dream and waking states as different, but very real manifestations of Consciousness. I'm thinking of it this way (to put it very simply): "I" am dreaming my dreams, "my" higher self is dreaming "my" physical life, and so on up the vibrational ladder. Until, at the Infinite level, Awareness is thinking all of it up.

Anyone concur?

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by YUDoodat

So, to get back to one of Steve's early posts in this thread where he said essentially, Think of your dream and waking states as different, but very real manifestations of Consciousness. I'm thinking of it this way (to put it very simply): "I" am dreaming my dreams, "my" higher self is dreaming "my" physical life, and so on up the vibrational ladder. Until, at the Infinite level, Awareness is thinking all of it up.

Anyone concur?

Couldn't tell you. Anytime I try to "understand" Steve's version of SR it seems I'm trying to "objectify" the "subjective" which isn't "objectifiable" so who knows.

My brain is broken. Anytime I think about stuff like this, at the end I always want to ask the question "SO WHAT? What does this mean to my everyday life?" I can't help it. I can understand complex theories, but I always have to tie them back to my everyday life, like how does SR affect me when I'm making a hotdog? How does it relate to my relationship with my wife? How does it relate to my bank account? How does it affect this keyboard I'm typing on. My stupid brain keeps asking such questions whenever I learn something. But, that's just me and my stupid brain.

[Angela]

Paul, that's one of my favorite questions, too. It sounds a little impertinent, but so what? There's so much information and so many ideas for living a life you love, filtering through them for ones that I can use effectively in MY life is a good idea. I believe that's your brilliant brain at work -- please quit calling my friend, your brain, stupid. Especially since it's just a reflection of my own.

So far, I find that using a perspective of subjective reality empowering. Actually I think that's just a new and fine-tuned version of how I've been practicing looking at the world since I was a teenager -- when I'm taking responsibility, anyway. I've tended to abandon that view when I wanted to blame the world for my problems. I think there's much I don't understand about what Steve says about SR, but taking 100% responsibility is something I am very clear works magnificently in creating a life I love.

Hey, weren't you working on a project awhile ago regarding creating a life you love, or manifesting your own reality (remember, when we were talking about getting the results of PATHS without using PATHS)? Did I miss your description of that project? Maybe you could link me to your articles, etc.
Thanks!

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Angela

Paul, that's one of my favorite questions, too. It sounds a little impertinent, but so what? There's so much information and so many ideas for living a life you love, filtering through them for ones that I can use effectively in MY life is a good idea. I believe that's your brilliant brain at work -- please quit calling my friend, your brain, stupid. Especially since it's just a reflection of my own.

I love my brain. It's my best friend and worst enemy. We have a love/hate relationship. It's great!

So far, I find that using a perspective of subjective reality empowering. Actually I think that's just a new and fine-tuned version of how I've been practicing looking at the world since I was a teenager -- when I'm taking responsibility, anyway. I've tended to abandon that view when I wanted to blame the world for my problems. I think there's much I don't understand about what Steve says about SR, but taking 100% responsibility is something I am very clear works magnificently in creating a life I love.

Me too, except that I find my version of Subjective Reality empowering. Steve's I don't know because I don't really get it yet. It could be the same as mine, or it could be totally different. Couldn't tell ya.

Hey, weren't you working on a project awhile ago regarding creating a life you love, or manifesting your own reality (remember, when we were talking about getting the results of PATHS without using PATHS)? Did I miss your description of that project? Maybe you could link me to your articles, etc.
Thanks!

Yes! What ended up happening is that I ended up manifesting a new house for myself which totally got me busy with getting all the financing done, renovations on my new place, reno's on my old place, selling my old place, moving all my stuff, setting up my new office, getting lighting figured out, etc. I've been so busy half my stuff is still packed up in boxes and I moved like 5 months ago. It's like a nuclear bomb dropped on my life and I'm still trying to catch up. It's all movement in the right direction and I'm loving it, but it's just kept me soooooo busy. Only now I'm slowly starting to dig myself out.

I'm still convinced my idea works, but I haven't thoroughly tested it enough to put my stamp of approval on it and write an article about it. I did find out later that the PATHS thing was what I thought it was though.

[Bene]

What happens after you exit the human life? Is there another more complex 'dream' to unravel? Or do you turn into a bundle of energy? If so where is this energy located? etc...

I think what God/Consciousness is, is beyond comprehension. All things are possible simultaneously. Intuitively this sounds like the real truth. To have any particular perspective be the only truth seems to be disempowering. There may be perspectives that are beyond the scope of human understanding.

In any case, I think what it comes down to is what is most empowering in your life.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Me too, except that I find my version of Subjective Reality empowering. Steve's I don't know because I don't really get it yet. It could be the same as mine, or it could be totally different. Couldn't tell ya.

If you listen to Steve speaking about SR in his podcast 'TTNoR' and read his SR Q&A, I defy anyone to not be confused by anything he has posted on the forum in repsonse to SR.

The contradictory level is obvious and the 'different lens' angle is a a cop out in the extreme. Openly abandoning OR for SR and then accepting OR back into the mix just sends a message of unsurity in my opinion.

I'm not criticizing Steve specifically, but when you have an active audience, changing your POV only undermines your perceived authority on matters relating to PD.

I have people PM me asking why Steve has changed his position, I don't know why they ask me, I'm God, how the hell would I know

Max

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Max Power

If you listen to Steve speaking about SR in his podcast 'TTNoR' and read his SR Q&A, I defy anyone to not be confused by anything he has posted on the forum in repsonse to SR.

The contradictory level is obvious and the 'different lens' angle is a a cop out in the extreme. Openly abandoning OR for SR and then accepting OR back into the mix just sends a message of unsurity in my opinion.

I'm not criticizing Steve specifically, but when you have an active audience, changing your POV only undermines your perceived authority on matters relating to PD.

I have people PM me asking why Steve has changed his position, I don't know why they ask me, I'm God, how the hell would I know

Max

LOL. You crack me up dude. I agree with what you say. What I did to kind of reconcile it all in my mind is try to identify the single point of difference between my version (seems to be like yours), and Steve's current version (which I too agree has changed from the past version).

In my opinion it all simply comes down to the relationship between God (Perfectness), Consciousness and Ego, and how they relate to our experience of a conscious mind.

For example, the mind you are thinking with right now, like the one who is reading this text, is it the ONLY mind out there? Or are there 7 billion minds like that? If there is only 1 then that would mean that that single mind is EGO which is CONSCIOUSNESS which is GOD. Therefore, that is why Max you say that "I'm God".

If you believe there are 7 billion minds out there, then that would mean that there are 7 billion little EGO's out there, and obviously each one of them is also made up of CONSCIOUSNESS and which is made up of GOD. Therefore everyone can still say "I'm God", but something along the lines of "I'm God divided by 7 billion" would be more accurate, but since infinity divided by any number is still infinity, it's STILL accurate to say "I'm God".

The difference, thus being that in the first example, if Max transcends his ego, meaning he becomes enlightened, everything will be fixed, the world will cease to exist and when he "wakes up" everything will disappear and become God again.

In the second example, it would require 7 billion Ego's to all become enlightened in order for everyone to "wake up" and for our world to disappear. Now, when one ego "wakes up" it does make it easier for other ego's to wake up, such as Jesus helping others "wake up" or in the movie The Matrix, Neo helping others. However, as long as there is still at least one ego out there, "earth would exist" in a way.

The difference I see in these examples, from my point of view is that in the 7 Billion Ego's example, each Ego is on a journey from the lower levels of consciousness towards the higher levels, like LOVE and PEACE etc. Between the 7 billion people, each person is at a different level. It's almost like a massive online multiplayer video game where each person starts at level 1 and they progress individually through the levels. Higher level players can help lower level players but each lower level player still has to progress from 1 to X. This seems to be the point of view Steve is taking. He is at level X, others might be at a slightly lower level, so he can help them out but really each of the 7 billion people moves up on their own.

In the single Ego example, there is no 7 BILLION people. This is the way I see it, and I think Max as well. There is only 1 EGO and it is on a single journey. This ego is YOU. This text you're reading, you created it simply to help yourself move up these levels. In fact, this text was never "written" by someone named IMPAUL99, it just appeared in front of you because you wanted to say it to yourself. When I say "yourself" I mean there is your TRUE SELF, and then there is your EGO SELF. This is your TRUE SELF talking to your EGO SELF in a way that EGO SELF will understand and possibly even accept. VOICES IN THE HEAD isn't acceptable to your EGO yet, so I (your TRUE SELF) have to resort to forums for now. SOON that will be different. But for now, I have to talk to you in this fashion.

So, BTW, Steve doesn't exist. IMPAUL99 doesn't exist. Nobody exists, it's all just you (True Self) talking to you (EGO).

See how the difference shines throught now?

The reason I think this way, is because the second way makes me more empowered. It means I don't have to "Cure the World", all I have to do is "Cure Myself" and "The World Will Be Cured".

Make sense?

*Edit: BTW, when I say that all I have to do is "Cure Myself", that very well may be that in order for me to do that I need to help the 7 Billion fake projections out there. It's rather paradoxial but I just wanted to say that before someone calls me selfish. It's not about hiding in the corner and meditating towards enlightenment. I realize that all of you out there are just projections of ME so therefore when I say I need to "Cure Mysef" I really mean help YOU, because if I help you I am helping myself.

[impaul99]

Also, read this definition from WikiPedia:

"Pantheism
While solipsism is not generally compatible with traditional views of God, it is somewhat related to Pantheism, the belief that everything is God and part of God. The difference is usually a matter of focus. The pantheist would tend to identify themselves with being a part of everything in reality, which is actually all God beneath the surface. For instance, many ancient Indian philosophies advocate the notion that all matter (and thus humans) is subtly interconnected with not only our immediate surroundings, but with everything in the universe; that all we can perceive is a kind of vision, Samsara. The solipsist, however, would be more likely to put themselves squarely in the center as the only item of reality, with all other beings in reality illusions. It could be said to be another naming dispute; "The Universe" / "God" for the pantheist is "My Unconscious Mind" / "Me" for the solipsist.

"

It would seem that Max and I are more likely describing Pantheism than Solipsism, since we're not saying God doesn't exist. We're saying everything I see is me, I am everything, and thus I am God and God is me.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Max Power

I'm not criticizing Steve specifically, but when you have an active audience, changing your POV only undermines your perceived authority on matters relating to PD.

I can't see where "perceived authority" is of much importance to either Steve as a writer or me as a reader. It seems to me what I read here involves evolution, learning, and growth, rather than a changed point of view. In any case, fluidity in your point of view seems like a wonderful thing to me.

Do you, Max (or you, people who have PM'd Max) feel it's important for a writer to get married to his point of view?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Angela

Do you, Max (or you, people who have PM'd Max) feel it's important for a writer to get married to his point of view?

*makes highly suggestive sounds*

*hasn't changed his stance*

*has been reading too much Sinfest*

*shouldn't be derailing the thread*

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

*makes highly suggestive sounds*

*hasn't changed his stance*

*has been reading too much Sinfest*

*shouldn't be derailing the thread*

Michael, I'm so sorry, it may be my cold medicine again, but I don't understand. Are you saying I should not be derailing the thread by asking my last question?

[Michael Chui]

No, I'm just feeling very loopy from having read about 2000 strips in the past twenty-four hours. And no, people should totally not be married. To points of view. *ducks*

Personally, I'm a bit confused as to why Paul and Max are so adamant about repeating that Steve is wrong.

[Angela]

Oh, I see. You're comic strip loopy and I'm sudafed loopy.

I don't get the impression that Paul is saying the whole thing is wrong so much as he doesn't get how it would be helpful for him -- resists it somewhat, but remains open to it through furthering discussion because maybe there's something there for him. Right, Paul? Sorry to talk about you in the third person.

Max, on the other hand, does seem to convey that one viewpoint has to be wrong for the other to be right, right? Or that somehow there is fear inherent in what Steve is saying about SR? I don't quite follow that. Actually, there's a lot here I don't quite follow.

One thing I did think I understood about subjective reality is that it's a useful, empowering, and fun perspective, and that you can just fool around with it, you don't have to get married . So it does tweak my brain a little bit when folks "argue" with it, because it makes me think there's something big I'm missing about SR. I just can't quite get there, with or without my cold medicine. I'll keep trying. (that's me, covering up my swollen eyeballs, not being cool.)

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Personally, I'm a bit confused as to why Paul and Max are so adamant about repeating that Steve is wrong.

Let me be clear. Steve is not wrong. He's defining the definition of HIS version of Subjective Reality. He can't be wrong, because it's his definition so it's impossible for him to be "wrong".

I'm simply trying to understand HIS version of SR, and comparing it to MY version of SR, and trying to analyze (mostly for myself) which is a more empowering way to live my life at this time.

The challenge me and Max are having is that prior to Steve's last few posts OUR versions of SR were the same as Steve's (at least we thought), and with the recent posts Steve made we now realize they could possibly be quite different.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Angela

Oh, I see. You're comic strip loopy and I'm sudafed loopy.

I don't get the impression that Paul is saying the whole thing is wrong so much as he doesn't get how it would be helpful for him -- resists it somewhat, but remains open to it through furthering discussion because maybe there's something there for him. Right, Paul? Sorry to talk about you in the third person.

Max, on the other hand, does seem to convey that one viewpoint has to be wrong for the other to be right, right? Or that somehow there is fear inherent in what Steve is saying about SR? I don't quite follow that. Actually, there's a lot here I don't quite follow.

One think I did think I understood about subjective reality is that it's a useful, empowering, and fun perspective, and that you can just fool around with it, you don't have to get married . So it does tweak my brain a little bit when folks "argue" with it, because it makes me think there's something big I'm missing about SR. I just can't quite get there, with or without my cold medicine. I'll keep trying. (that's me, covering up my swollen eyeballs, not being cool.)

Yes, you are right. I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I'm simply trying to discuss for the sake of better understanding.

If Steve's SR makes total sense to you already, that's awesome, no need to read further. If it still doesn't, then this is why we're discussing it.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by impaul99

The challenge me and Max are having is that prior to Steve's last few posts OUR versions of SR were the same as Steve's (at least we thought), and with the recent posts Steve made we now realize they could possibly be quite different.

In another thread you pointed out that you define Consciousness differently than I do, so that's probably the source of confusion. That's probably why you thought I shifted viewpoints.

To me Consciousness = Source / God / Pure Potentiality / Pure Awareness.

Thoughts, ego, and the physical universe all represent the contents of Consciousness, as viewed from different perspectives.

[YUDoodat]

Originally Posted by YUDoodat

So, to get back to one of Steve's early posts in this thread where he said essentially, Think of your dream and waking states as different, but very real manifestations of Consciousness. I'm thinking of it this way (to put it very simply): "I" am dreaming my dreams, "my" higher self is dreaming "my" physical life, and so on up the vibrational ladder. Until, at the Infinite level, Awareness is thinking all of it up.

Anyone concur?

So, what do you think, Steve? Have I "caught" your drift?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by YUDoodat

So, what do you think, Steve? Have I "caught" your drift?

Nope. To me it appears you're creating a false hierarchy, most likely because you're still trying to fit the SR structure within a framework that has an objective foundation.

While nighttime dreams, astral projection, and the waking world have different vibrational aspects which allow them to manifest in different ways, foundationally they're the same thing and on equal footing with each other. To impose a hierarchical structure on them is unnecessary.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

In another thread you pointed out that you define Consciousness differently than I do, so that's probably the source of confusion. That's probably why you thought I shifted viewpoints.

To me Consciousness = Source / God / Pure Potentiality / Pure Awareness.

Thoughts, ego, and the physical universe all represent the contents of Consciousness, as viewed from different perspectives.

In your posts you often refer to things like "God-Consciousness" and "Ego-Consciousness" and sometimes you refer to "you" and "I" and then say that you mean "consciousness" by those words.

Why not just say GOD, and EGO, instead of God Consciousness and Ego Consciousness. Why not say GOD when you mean the "I" that is pure, and say EGO when you refer to Steve etc.?

Maybe that would clarify things a bit.

Since I consider cosciousness to be domain of the Ego and you consider it domain of the pure God, I can still attempt to understand your posts, I just need to run an extended-replace on the word "consciousness" and replace it with "God" or "Universe".

I still think that the words "you" and "I" are ambiguous in a few places.

[Savage]

I tend to avoid using the word God because it means so many different things to different people, especially in a religious context.

Probably what would work best is to coin some fresh vocabulary that can be defined more precisely. But for right now, I'm still experimenting with different ways of explaining an experience that is beyond words. Any verbal description of SR is a mere projection, like a circle to a sphere.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I tend to avoid using the word God because it means so many different things to different people, especially in a religious context.

Probably what would work best is to coin some fresh vocabulary that can be defined more precisely. But for right now, I'm still experimenting with different ways of explaining an experience that is beyond words. Any verbal description of SR is a mere projection, like a circle to a sphere.

Let's just use GOD for a second. I don't mean a dude on a throne. I mean the kind of God-consciousness you mean. But lets just call that God for a second.

In your SR model, you're basically saying that you (God you) is creating this whole reality and everything in it. Everything is contained in your (God) consciousness. RIght?

Therefore, would it be accurate to say that your version of SR means that God is creating everything and everything is contained inside God? If so, uhm... so what? Isn't that kind of already a given for anyone who is not an atheist?

God created earth, and 7 billion people, one of them happens to be Steve Pavlina. When Steve Pavlina is sitting and eating dinner one day, looking at his dining room and his house from an Objective Reality point of view with one eye, he simultanously has an experience of realization that from a Subjective Reality point of view ALL of this, the dining room, the fork, the plates, the table, even Steve himself is all made by God and everything is inside God.

Uhm...ok... that's great, but so what? Besides the realization that God creates everything and ANYTHING is possible within God, how does that affect anything to the human being called Steve Pavlina? Doesn't , under your model, Steve Pavlina still live very much in an OR world with OR rules???

I don't quite see how it fits in.

[ethereal]

Originally Posted by impaul99

...

God created earth, and 7 billion people, one of them happens to be Steve Pavlina. When Steve Pavlina is sitting and eating dinner one day, looking at his dining room and his house from an Objective Reality point of view with one eye, he simultanously has an experience of realization that from a Subjective Reality point of view ALL of this, the dining room, the fork, the plates, the table, even Steve himself is all made by God and everything is inside God.

That's basically it

But when you really experience it on an experiential level and not intellectual level, it's mind-blowing, literally

I haven't had full experiences of it, just tiny tiny glimpses. But from what I've seen, what it means is that you're completely free. There is no "you" (ego) to suffer anymore. It's like what Steve talked about in "The Joy of Sadness" -- everything is fine, everything is ok, everything has a particular quality of joy, beauty, and perfection to it. There's nothing you need, nothing you want -- not even the desire to continue existing in the next moment -- because you are already complete and perfect. And my mini-experiences are probably just 1% of what the real thing feels like

So I applaud and encourage all your efforts to understand SR, because it's all worth it in the end

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by ethereal

That's basically it

But when you really experience it on an experiential level and not intellectual level, it's mind-blowing, literally

I haven't had full experiences of it, just tiny tiny glimpses. But from what I've seen, what it means is that you're completely free. There is no "you" (ego) to suffer anymore. It's like what Steve talked about in "The Joy of Sadness" -- everything is fine, everything is ok, everything has a particular quality of joy, beauty, and perfection to it. There's nothing you need, nothing you want -- not even the desire to continue existing in the next moment -- because you are already complete and perfect. And my mini-experiences are probably just 1% of what the real thing feels like

So I applaud and encourage all your efforts to understand SR, because it's all worth it in the end

That sounds similar to something Eckhart Tolle would say sitting on a recliner by his swimming pool. "Just enjoy the peace of God."

Yeah, that's awesome when you have a passive or at least semi-passive income like he has or even Steve has. I had many such experiences of "God's peace" when I was on my honeymoon last year, sitting on a beach chair in Hawaii pretty much doing nothing. In that kind of setting it's easy not to want to change anything, not to want to have any desires, and accept everything is already perfect. THat's because IT IS! Or at least close to it.

When you're not at that level where you can "vacation" 23hours of your 24hour day, how does Steve's SR point of view help you?

How does the average person who works 40hours a week at a job, with another 10 hours of commuting in there, and trying to run a "side business" or two on the side for another 20-30hours a week tap into the benefits of a Subjective Reality perspective?

[songwriter]

I use "God" for the, you know, attributes omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent... thought it soon can be related to the Bible God or other.
"The Universe consciousness" would be a new try... or "Consciousness collective" more as I see it.

[YUDoodat]

Impaul,

You are getting caught up in mistaking outward circumstances for inner reality. Why would you say, for instance that sitting on a beach in Hawaii is close to perfect? How is that so? What is "perfect"? Is it an outward circumstance in the world of form and sensation that your body and mind prefer? Or is "perfection" rather something else altogether?

If you were to be sitting on that beach, and on the horizon spied a tsunami heading directly at you, would you still consider your situation perfect? Based on your previous posts, I suspect not. However, there are those to whom a sun-drenched beach and a tsunami would be essentially the same. It all depends on one's perspective.

The perspective I'm trying to get across is, Where is the source of your life? Is it in having everything you think you want? OR, rather, in wanting everything you already have? That is the key to what you have referred to as "perfection". Perfection per se is not attainable in this world of form and shadow. However, surrender with contentment is the mindset one needs to begin to access the joy contained within every present moment. This is all you have. Until one can learn to be content in the present moment, no matter what his/her circumstances, happiness and joy will be as elusive as a butterfly on the wind.