Subjective Reality Simplified (Blog)

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

The way I really got SR was when I was sitting in my backyard one day, and I saw a bird singing. It suddenly hit me that the bird was just as much "me" as my physical body. I could actually feel that we were the same being, like it was one of my fingers or toes. Then that feeling expanded to include the ground, the walls, the trees, the sky, etc. I could feel it was all the same entity, and that my physical body was only a small part of it.

Intellectually I had already been noticing that SR made more logical sense than OR -- for months prior to this -- but that's when I really internalized it. It's like I had to live with the logic of it for a while before it snapped into experiential awareness.

Ever since then life has been very easy and very flowing... much less of a struggle than it was before. Some days I get caught up dwelling on how perfect everything is.

This is as interesting as funny as complicate...
I don't know if it's allowed but I disagree with you in... "It suddenly hit me that the bird was just as much "me" as my physical body." Our physical body has connection with our mind and soul (throught the hormones). And that's why face reading exist... and some personality traits of you, show in your face and some feelings of you show in your face and body, etc...
And why eyes movement depends on if you're reminding or creating words... for instance...

Maybe in the bird, too... that's another question... but when you feel something your body/mind/soul changes much more then the rest of... the universe. I think we have two parts. The "I" and the one connected with everything, that's kind like your SR. But there's a "I" that's not the "everything" because it doesn't shape the "everything" much (but a little), and that I influences more the total you that anything in the universe.

Me=I(Body, Mind/Soul/Consciousness)+SR(Collective Consciousness)

In the ocean allegory...
I'm a droplet but I'm part of the ocean too. I'm not the whole ocean but I'm part of it... so yes, you can count me as "ocean" (the collective droplet or...droplet collective).

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Max Power

I look at my dog and he looks at me and I know he has no consciousness and/or conscious POV because there is nothing inside him that's capable of looking at me on a conscious level.

How do you know that?

[Rose of Cairo]

Songwriter, I wouldn't use the word "collective consciousness" in a SR context. This term is already in use and means something else, so this could lead to confusion. The word "collective" also suggests that this consciousness is conglomerate, as if every person had their own consciousness. But that's not correct. There is only one consciousness in SR: me

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

There is only one consciousness in SR: me

That's also confusing

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

Songwriter, I wouldn't use the word "collective consciousness" in a SR context. This term is already in use and means something else, so this could lead to confusion. The word "collective" also suggests that this consciousness is conglomerate, as if every person had their own consciousness. But that's not correct. There is only one consciousness in SR: me

Okey, I've seen that in English it has another meaning... "consciousness collective" then... kind of Jung's "Collective unconscious" Yes, I really think it's a conglomerate but you have access and relationship to the conglomerate but you're not the conglomerate itself.
If you think there's only your consciousness is what Steve calls solipsism...
Then my "I(Body, Mind/Soul/Consciousness)" is not relating with you at all... cause I have no soul you know. It's only you that got one. You're reading letters from a creation of your consciousness. In that case... I'm happy about how you have created me.

[Rose of Cairo]

No, that's not solipsism... Solipsism would be if I identified myself with my avatar, with my body/mind, and called the world a projection of my mind. That would be solipsism.

but I don't identify myself with my avatar. When I say "me" I don't mean my avatar on earth, I mean me as the consciousness containing the whole world. There is only this one consciousness in SR, so it can't be a conglomerate of many people's consciousnesses.

The way you see it songwriter is different from SR. That's ok, you're free to see it as you want. But don't say me = I + SR... it doesn't make sense.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

No, that's not solipsism... Solipsism would be if I identified myself with my avatar, with my body/mind, and called the world a projection of my mind. That would be solipsism.

but I don't identify myself with my avatar. When I say "me" I don't mean my avatar on earth, I mean me as the consciousness containing the whole world. There is only this one consciousness in SR, so it can't be a conglomerate of many people's consciousnesses.

The way you see it songwriter is different from SR. That's ok, you're free to see it as you want. But don't say me = I + SR... it doesn't make sense.

I think you see SR like me and Max. It's not Solipsism. It's just the belief that there is only ONE consciousness that happens to be, in this particular moment, typing on this keyboard with Impaul99 as the avatar. This ONE consciousness is ME. There is only one ME.

Steve's moved away from that, if he ever was there.

I think this way of thinking is much more empowering though.

[geekchic9]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Intellectually I had already been noticing that SR made more logical sense than OR -- for months prior to this -- but that's when I really internalized it. It's like I had to live with the logic of it for a while before it snapped into experiential awareness.

Oh, good. That gives me hope. So, as long as I am patient, I will grok SR eventually in a sort of kensho.

Ever since then life has been very easy and very flowing... much less of a struggle than it was before. Some days I get caught up dwelling on how perfect everything is.

That sounds awesome.

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

No, that's not solipsism... Solipsism would be if I identified myself with my avatar, with my body/mind, and called the world a projection of my mind. That would be solipsism.

but I don't identify myself with my avatar. When I say "me" I don't mean my avatar on earth, I mean me as the consciousness containing the whole world. There is only this one consciousness in SR, so it can't be a conglomerate of many people's consciousnesses.

The way you see it songwriter is different from SR. That's ok, you're free to see it as you want. But don't say me = I + SR... it doesn't make sense.

Well, I just tried to use words already known instead of creating some new names or so... okey...
I=my own thing (Body/Mind/Soul/Consciousness)+interaction with alteration to (and part) of the Consciousness collective, the whole thing.


So I differ from Steve in idea of the conglomerate of consciousness, that form.. the big, one consciousness collective. And from you in that you and... I'mPaul99 and Max that see yourself are the container of the consciousness.
Well, if I'm not missing some point, at least two of you three are wrong.

For me you are containers of the conciousness too, like everyone, but have your "own thing" too like everyone.

[Rose of Cairo]

songwriter: that's OR

impaul99, I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean. Would you please clarify?

Andwan: I am not Steve, I cannot speak for him, but I can tell you how I feel it. (edit: impaul99 is saying this is not the way Steve sees it, so please take care...!!) You say we are all spirits dreaming this life. I guess that's not SR. If you say we are all spirits having this common dream, you assume there are many consciousnesses and all of them are on the same level. That's not SR. That's still some kind of OR view of reality.

in SR there is only one consciousness: you. in SR you don't "have" a consciousness, you are consciousness. You are not your avatar on earth, this body and mind thing running around. You are pure consciousness and you contain everything, you are the whole world. Everything is a manifestation of you, each thing in the world is a manifestation of your "thoughts". (Or, I would rather say states, or parts. I don't think it's appropriate for consciousness to talk about "thoughts"). Your avatar (= body+mind) is a manifestation of you just the same as other persons in your life, a bird, or an earthquake is a manifestation of you. That's why we are all one: you

that may seem confusing because you are used to say "I" or "me" about your earthly avatar, whereas in SR "I" or "me" is the all-containing-consciousness. So in our familiar language there are two of "you" : there is a big you, consciousness. and a small you, your avatar. And small you is a part of big you, just the same as your neighbour (the neighbour of small you) is a part of big you. Everything is you!

To the dreaming thing: imagine tonight you sleep and have a dream. you dream about some people talking to you. In this moment, there are two of you too: the "big" you is dreaming. The "small" you is inside of the dream talking to other people who are inside of the dream too. Inside of the dream they are just as real as small you and on the same level as he is. they have a soul and a consciousness and a free will and so on, just as he has. But the whole dream takes place inside of the consciousness of big you, right? The dream reflects what you're thinking of, what bothers you, what feelings you have at the moment, who you are... the whole dream, including all people and including small you, is a manifestation of the consciousness of big you. So in fact there is only one consciousness at that moment: yours. Even though for small you in the dream the dreamworld seems very real and objective.

Well in SR it's exactly the same. the whole world, including other people, earthquakes and you-avatar (small you) is a manifestation of you-consciousness (big you). this you-consciousness is the only consciousness existing. So we are not all dreaming spirits: you're the only one. If you want to assume that every person in your world is the avatar of a dreaming spirit, that's ok, but then you're dreaming about other dreaming spirits. Not dreaming together with other dreamers on the same level.

edit: if that's not what Steve says I guess I didn't get it or I don't agree with Steve. But that's the way I feel it, so I cannot change it.

[ethereal]

I agree that in SR, there is only one consciousness animating everything, and everything is a reflection of you. But that holds true for everybody else as well -- you are a reflection of everyone else you meet. That upholds the elegance of the higher-order symmetry of the universe, or else there still exists the duality of consciousness/universe being localized from your body-mind's perspective, instead of consciousness being nonlocal/infinite from an infinite number of perspectives.

Basically, consciousness, which is One, is interacting with itself, through all of its parts. It's a paradox how the One can seem to interact with itself, but that's how life is From the ground-level perspective of the human being, people are interacting with their infinite number of reflections of themselves, but from the perspective of Consciousness, everything is just One karmic dance. And like Steve says, these perspectives are not mutually exclusive but co-exist depending on how you're looking at it.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

This took me, like, a bloody 90 minutes to write, Mark. *shakes fist at you* Fortunately, space pirates died during the middle of it, so I forgive you.

I appreciate it, even if I often have difficulty fully understanding it, space pirates or no (curse those pirates and their gate camping)

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

But that doesn't require comparison or this "putting one in the other" deal. It requires the declaration and agreement that "red != blue". This is really easy to accept: everyone seems to agree that this is true.

Right. The analogy breaks down there. But the utility of one versus the other, or more helpfully, the context within which one or the other is more beneficial, isn't revealed through that agreement. Which I suppose is why your model doesn't make it so easy to consider the two lens to be mutually exclusive (as is very easy with OR vs SR).

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I can see why you do it, though. "Fairness" isn't really the best term. Perhaps "useful"? "Valid"? I don't even think that you're understanding Steve's intentions correctly, but I think that that section of Steve's post is... not so good.

Yup, "fairness" is an emotive term. It doesn't add anything to my argument. I shouldn't have used it.

His stated overall intention was to explain the perspective of subjective reality. As far as I can see, in that specific section his intention was to show how OR and SR can contradict each other (depending on one's perspective), and how SR satisfies the requirements of a model which accounts "for all potentially valid sub-models that are not falsifiable", and how OR does not.

Anyway, my point, simplified, is that Steve didn't succeed in showing that the OR model is any less valid than the SR model, in terms of accounting for all potentially valid sub-models that are not falsifiable. His conclusion indicates that he was also intending to show why he's such an advocate of SR. I don't agree with his explanation of why SR is superior, but that's ok, it works for him and doesn't harm anyone else (except perhaps those who attempt to adopt his perspective and fail).

Your model avoids that issue by considering both lens necessary, and complimentary. I may be misinterpreting Steve, but it seems he considers OR useful, but not necessary, and ultimately less useful than an SR perspective (hence the bias against OR, demonstrated by the invalid comparison).

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I may be misinterpreting Steve, but it seems he considers OR useful, but not necessary, and ultimately less useful than an SR perspective (hence the bias against OR, demonstrated by the invalid comparison).

Hm, I don't. I think he's putting far too much effort into defending OR for him to think it's completely inferior. But that's something only he can answer.

[songwriter]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

songwriter: that's OR

lol, so in the end... do I believe in OR? I didn't expect that... let me check.

"Objective Reality (OR) is the perspective that you’re the character in the dream world, and the dream world is solid, real, and objective. An OR person wouldn’t normally think of the physical world as a dream at all — they accept the (socially conditioned) notion that the dream world is reality itself. The objective world itself is seen as the basis for knowledge. Note that there can be no proof whatsoever that this is how reality actually works; it’s one giant unprovable assumption. It’s also not falsifiable."

I do not find something against my beliefs... but "the world is objective"... no I think it's different for everyone but.. well...

now I don't even know in what I believe lol... I know how it is... sure it's OR?

[mosbyone]

My view is close on both OR and SR definitions : R is the movie, SR is my acting in the movie, OR is my watching the movie I act in to see where i've been and where i'm going.

[munish]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

When I shift my perspective to a higher level view to .

Eckhart tolle,and many young philosophers(Like Deepak Chopra ) and many others in the past have tried to explain SR.

But why steve pavlina has done a great work.The reason is he believes in http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...-spirituality/

People like Deepak Chopra are no match for Steve Pavlina's Communication skills.(and easy language use).The reason could be that he(S.P.) is a native english speaker.

[Joeschmoe]

there is a lot of explaining SR in terms of OR here. It really isn't possible. SR is simply the understanding that you can never prove anything outside of the present state of being. SR doesn't deal with OR things. In OR the bird can never be Joe, the Body/mind that my awareness is attached to. In SR I just realize that bird must be part of the greater I. I am as much the bird as i am myself and i am no more the body/mind Joe than i am the bird and the rest of my awareness. OR doesn't really come into this at all, so it really can't disprove or prove it. SR is outside of OR's domain. For those who disbelieve just try on this viewpoint for a while, then make a decision as to whether it makes sense.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by munish

But why steve pavlina has done a great work.The reason is he believes in http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...-spirituality/

That's a great link Munish, thanks.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina's Blog

If the pursuit of spirituality causes you to lose the ability to function in the modern world, then I’d say you’ve taken a wrong turn. Genuine spirituality should be immensely practical. If your model of reality is accurate, then you shouldn’t have to escape reality to feel whole and complete. You should be able to function even better than the average person, especially when confronted with modern day challenges.

What I would say to this quote, which is taken from the cave free spirituality blog, would be a big maybe.

I'm not saving to go live in a cave, but I am saying that most social systems in the US today are a far cry from being for any kind of greater good. This is true for much of the world. And escaping those poor social norms is not the same thing as escaping reality.

Toxic socialital systems are a part of modern reality, but not necessarily something you have to be a part of.

For example, obtaining a military contract is one of the most clever and practical ways to make a lot of money in the US today. That doesn't make it spiritual.

Being a murderer in Iraq right now, or perhaps rallying behind one is highly practical today. Not spiritual.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

What I would say to this would be a big fat maybe. Escaping poor social norms and escaping reality are two different things.

I'm not saving to go live in a cave, but most social systems in the US today are a far cry from being for the greater good.

Erm. He said that spirituality enables practicality. Not that practicality was spiritual.