Accuracy (Blog)

[Savage]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Accuracy

[impaul99]

This article just sounds like you're stuck on the fence between an objective reality and a subjective reality.

I don't think it's like equating hearing with sight as those are two completely seperate senses, and what you're talking about are two different perspectives on the same thing.

For example, lets take a situation. Your wife judges your friend harshly for eating meat.

Pure Subjective Reality Response - "I am creating this. I still have a lot of judgement towards people with different beliefs than me. I need to be more accepting. I accept my friend as he is and my wife just the way she is."

Pure Objective Reality Response - "Why is my wife so fricken judgemental? What's her problem? And why does my friend have to eat meat? What an idiot!"

These are just examples, but they stem from a viewpoint of whether or not you are "creating" the situation (subjective) or just witnessing it (objective).

I think it would be more wise to choose which you believe and stick with it, don't you think? Trying to say you believe both are equally true is sitting on the fence. It might result in something like this:

"Honey, why are you so judgemental? Don't you realize that you're creating and attracting people like this? You should really learn to be more accepting!"

to which, you will eventually get:

"Quit judging me!"

[Chinese Dragon]

Interesting, but I don't use the subjective reality perspective anymore, sorry. It just didn't resonate with me.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Nah I don't think Steve is on the fence. Like he says, its like picking up different lens, if I picked up a blue lens, sure I would see everything in blue, and people would know where I stood on the whole..."Life is blue" thing...but I would never see Red, and I could never relate to other seers of red...you get what I am saying?

[Rose of Cairo]

impaul99, I disagree with you. There's a cat at my side now, I can see it, or I can hear it. It's two perspectives on the same thing. Choosing only one of them would be a loss of information.

[Savage]

I'll write another article later this week to explain the difference between a mono-dimensional model of reality vs. a multi-dimensional model. But as a quick answer for now, beliefs are merely perceptual filters, so there's no reason you cannot peer through more than one and then combine the data for a better view of the big picture. This is similar to how your eyes work. Each eye snaps a 2D image, and the results are combined into a 3D stereo representation that merges the data from both eyes.

I'm sure some people will resist this idea, but you can actually do the same thing with beliefs. For example, Christianity can be your left eye, and atheism can be your right eye. Even though these belief systems appear to contradict each other, if you allow those contradictions to exist simultaneously, that's where the stereo depth comes from.

[theknightwhosaysni-NI]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I'm sure some people will resist this idea, but you can actually do the same thing with beliefs. For example, Christianity can be your left eye, and atheism can be your right eye. Even though these belief systems appear to contradict each other, if you allow those contradictions to exist simultaneously, that's where the stereo depth comes from.

That's what I am struggling with indeed.
I know that it is possible to understand different beliefs system perfectly. But it seems difficult to me to really experience contradictory belief systems in the same time.

For instance, I do understand the objective and the subjective models of reality. But if I concentrate enough to get in a state of truly experiencing subjective reality, then the objective model -even though i can understand it- doesn't seem acurate anymore.
I've found the quest to experience more and more subjective reality very enlightening, and every time I went back to the objective model it felt I was lowering my state of counsciousness.

Second example :
I used to be a christian for a long time, and I can definitely see some good things in christianity. But after having explored other belief systems, I would say now that I understand christianity, not that I can fully experience it without rejecting many other beliefs.
Or can I?

[Max Power]

I don't accept that we can use both. The whole point of understanding where we are and why we're there is to simplify our lives to the point that we empower oursleves to create and live better. OR means you're a human being and consciousness is generated from that human being. All the human beings are alive and living as is everything else is even when you're not there to observe it.

SR is the opposite. You are consciousness and the whole thing (but only what is ever in your consciousness awareness) is happeing inside your consciousness, which includes your own body and mind. Nothing truly exists until you bring it into conscious awareness, your conscious awareness.

I don't consider that you can have it both ways unless you are unsure of which way you want to view reality. I accept it's one or the other. Technically there is no right or wrong, but as the point (I consider) of PD is to simplify the understanding of reality to aid in the empowerment of yourself, it seems to be confusing when a person who shares information, states openly they believe in one POV and then say they adopt other beliefs also.

It seems to contradict itself when you adopt one POV and then change it to the other. So one minute you're the only concious being and everything is happening within you and the next minute you're a human being with a consciousness steming from that human being and everyone else has a portion or a separate consciousness. If you listen to Steve's 'The True Nature of Reality' then one would consider he is of the SR POV and now he's changed his mind and accepted both SR and OR, but the basic premise of each one actually excludes the other. While it's great Steve is sharing his opinions with us all about different POV's I consider the problem is arising from Steve's own admissions that he believed or had at least adopted SR and now has adopted OR as well.

To say these are lens to view reality is fine, but how can our reality be trustable and usable if we're constantly changing the POV. One day we believe in a religious god, then the next day we don't, then we believe in SR and then we don't I suppose that the real problem is placing too much faith in our gurus and teachers. How does Steve know what's right? How do I know what's right? How do any of the gurus and teachers who share their knowledge know the truth?

They don't, they're just sharing information. If we're going to say......"this is how I believe it is".......that's fine, but I think it undermines the value of the information when the person sharing, seems to change their mind. People put much faith and trust in authoritive figures and when the message starts to get really confusing, then people get frustrated.

This may seem like I'm criticizing Steve, but I'm not. There are inherent problems with presenting an idea to a large audience and then adapting or changing that idea to something else.

You can see why people are confused and frustrated.

Max

It doesn't really affect me, because I know I'm God

[~C4Chaos]

hi Steve,

thanks for your blog post about subjective reality and your follow up post regarding accuracy.

i think this clarified some of your previous writings a bit whenever you used to the term "subjective reality."

i just posted a blog about it and equated your description of subjective reality with "The Witness."

allow me to post the link here: Subjective Reality = The Witness

in one of the comments from that blog post, an online buddy of mine pointed out that: "There are definite criteria to establish whether one is speaking/writing from an actual experience with depth and stability, or simply constructing stories from a conceptualized, reified framework, or even worse, from an imagined realization."

i agree with that statement. so here's my suggestion: how about posting about subjective reality based on your first-hand experience instead of from a contextualized analogy? of course, i'm assuming that you've experienced this state of consciousness you call "subjective reality". what do you (or the super-experiencer, aka The Witness) see, feel, hear, touch, smell, taste, think during this state of consciousness. how often do you have access to it? how do you access it? by meditation? by lucid dreaming? in short, it would be cool to have a blog post about a subjective reality coming from an I-perspective. i'm just interested to see how you'll describe the experience as soon as you contract to persona known as Steve Pavlina

my two cents.

keep it flowing...

~C

[songwriter]

Till the previous post of Steve SR was a mess for me... lol... but I think I got the idea.

If there's a judgement... Steve's not going to think he has created the judgement... no! he's not the only consciouns, not the only creator or the one that can alter the universe....

The subject can alter the reality. Any subject. And I was wondering why "some more than others" like I said in the comments on the previous blog... and Steve says "the one with more accurate beliefs are better creating" or changing the world mentally...

I've said since ages "Dreams create reality", awaken dreams... everyone's...
I think that's what he means and I never have seen it such clear.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" Imagine... and you start creating it...
but you're not gonna change it all... and not depends on you but on milions of people... thought some have more creative power than others... well... I don't like the word "creative" cause I link it with classic creativity like in arts...


Everybody knows the lyrics of Imagine... okey... but you just imagining that is not gonna change the whole world, because you're not the only one... if everybody done it then it will change. Or the ones with more accurate beliefs... mmm... and that last thing is one thing to keep oneself wondering...
Who are the ones with more accurate beliefs?...

YouTube - Imagine
John Lennon-Imagine... if you do it that objective reality is already being changed by a subject...

[Takuin Minamoto]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Pure Subjective Reality Response - "I am creating this. I still have a lot of judgement towards people with different beliefs than me. I need to be more accepting. I accept my friend as he is and my wife just the way she is."

Pure Objective Reality Response - "Why is my wife so fricken judgemental? What's her problem? And why does my friend have to eat meat? What an idiot!"

I still fail to see the point of any of this. In the first example you are projecting your thought onto the reality. You see the event, and resist reality. You think that you should be different from what you are, i.e., "I should be more accepting," when in reality, you are not. You can't sit with what you are and go into it. You just project your thought onto an event. (not YOU personally.)

In the second example, once again, thought is projected onto the situation. You see her eating meat, and immediately you go into a tirade of what should be, i.e., "She shouldn't do that." You believe she shouldn't do it, and when you see her do it, violence is born. Do you see any of this. In both situations thought is dominant. Nothing real is being seen. Only your projected thought of reality is seen; your idea of what should be is seen and nothing more.

Is there anything of any value at all in this form of thinking? In both situations reality IS NOT being seen; only our projected thoughts about reality. Why is it necessary to be this way? Why do we accept it? No one questions it; we only play with it.

These are just examples, but they stem from a viewpoint of whether or not you are "creating" the situation (subjective) or just witnessing it (objective).

In both cases nothing is being "created" or "witnessed". It is only a projection of our thoughts that tell us one or the other. If one is able to observe, nothing can be said at all. The physical organism sees the event, and that is all. But if the self believes whatever happens should be different from what it is, then violence is born.

"I am not accepting, but I should be," or, "My wife is judgemental but she shouldn't be." If this is the case, nothing real is EVER seen. Just our thoughts about what should be.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Max Power

They don't, they're just sharing information. If we're going to say......"this is how I believe it is".......that's fine, but I think it undermines the value of the information when the person sharing, seems to change their mind. People put much faith and trust in authoritive figures and when the message starts to get really confusing, then people get frustrated.

This may seem like I'm criticizing Steve, but I'm not. There are inherent problems with presenting an idea to a large audience and then adapting or changing that idea to something else.

You can see why people are confused and frustrated.

Max

It doesn't really affect me, because I know I'm God

Whether we're right, or whether we're wrong Max, I definitely see that we're both resonating at the exact same frequency. I totally agree with you.

I think Steve was originally running in one direction, but is now going the opposite way. Maybe all the people who bitched and complained that his posts are getting too "woo woo" convinced him to take a more conservative approach. I suppose it's probably safer to publicly talk about how to cook brown rice, than it is to say something like "I know I'm God. You don't exist."

It's ok. I know why I created this situation anyways.

[Brutha]

Steve, I know you despise labels.
But you need some label for your multiperspective beliefset concept. Otherwise people will simply take the concept and think it falls under some Label that they are already familiar with.

Multitheismn could be a good word.
I am a multitheist sounds good.

Multiperspectivist is also nice.

[songwriter]

I'm back to solve my own doubts. The rest can continue with your discussion.

Okey... the more able to change are the ones with more accurate beliefs... the most "virtuous" people? I'm thinking of "What makes a great person?" (creativity, love of learning, curiosity, open-mindedness, bravery, perseverance, hope, spirituality, humility, etc. to see the whole list, check that thread...)

I'm back to:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...ering-beliefs/

as I use to end with a song quote, lol...

"Maybe I will never be
All the things that I want to be
But now is not the time to cry
Now's the time to find out why
I think you're the same as me
We see things they'll never see"

Live Forever-Oasis
YouTube - Oasis - Live Forever

"cause i just want to fly..."

[Michael Chui]

Actually, explaining that there exists a dynamic between prediction and creation is rather useful.

There is a reason that you created the objective perspective in life: it seems a shame to throw it away. Why did you create the ability to see things objectively?

Objectively speaking, the idea of responsibility is really quite... foolish, in my opinion. Things simply happen. There aren't really any initiators: just a script being played out.

Subjectively, all the responsibility falls upon yourself. You are thus compelled to act and, thus, create and in creating, grow and evolve. To be in motion.

I find the objective lens to be an instigator towards knowledge. It's a guide to indicate what parts of you you're not completely aware of. It's humble: the posture of a student. Whereas the subjective lens is the posture of an entrepreneur: a master of oneself, verging on arrogance in his certainty and confidence.

It makes a lot more sense than just one or the other.