Subjective Reality Simplified (Blog)

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by impaul99

In dreams, stuff just shows up. I don't have to think "TREE" and a tree appears...it's just there. So are people. And they talk to me. And I don't have to think "Say Hello" in my dream for the people to say "Hello". They just do. Well, what's doing that? If THAT is possible. So is this world being just a dream of my imagination.

In a dream you are the dreamer and everyone in that dream is you and your creation. People aren't sharing your dream.It's the same in the real world. You're the dreamer, but this dream is more dense, so the output is more challening to change, but it's still a dream.

A better word is perception. It's still a perception of consciousness.Your waking life is no more or less important than the dreams you have and I consider there's a reason why we dream and it's not because the body is tired. In a dream we don't consciously choose everything in the dream, stuff just happens, but we're still the dreamer, still in control, same in the real world.

I suspect we have it round the wrong way or at least place importance in the wrong place. Our physical world is so important and we view dreams as a result of being tired, but this waking life is the lesser perception.

When the avatar expires, well still have a perception, a way to continue on. When we sleep we still continue on, so while the physical world is full of tangible stuff, it is indeed the lesser perception.

Max

[briancurry]

Originally Posted by Max Power

7 billion people, most who I will never meet, never know of and all have free will???.......I don't buy it. Believing everyone has free will stems from the belief that there are 7 billion people on this planet.

Maybe an acceptable idea to some, but if they're all seperate, then they all have a seperate consciousness and that means the individual is a victim to the sum total of any or all individual consciousness. Seems pointless from an individual creative POV. Why bother when your creative power is always at the mercy of a collective consciousness?

Why bother being god when everyone else is.

Max

You honestly don't buy that everyone (yes, even those you will never meet!) has free will? Furthermore, I gather you don't believe that there are billions of people on the planet.

I wonder, could you explain? They make no sense to me, those things that you believe.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by briancurry

You honestly don't buy that everyone (yes, even those you will never meet!) has free will? Furthermore, I gather you don't believe that there are billions of people on the planet.

I wonder, could you explain? They make no sense to me, those things that you believe.

Empowerment is where you believe something that helps you live your life as best as possible.

When you believe there are other people out there, then it will always be you against them on some level at any given moment. When you believe in coincidence, accident and outside controlled randomness, then you will always be a victim on some level.

When you believe you're the only conscious being here, nothing can hurt you (not even death) and everything is of your creation for the sole purpose of experiencing everything you're not.........imperfection.........joyous, beautiful, lovely, dangerous, scary, evil, annoying, funny imperfection.

Max

[haydenlaw]

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.

Ok - I'm going to jump in here - tho I've only been reading all this for a couple of days and know I have more digesting to do. But in this post, Steve, you make a point that I think is really important. Let me back into it -
First, if I get it right, SR is more or less the context in which the LoA works. From reading some of your other posts, that seems to be what you're saying. "I’ve had to make major adjustments to my beliefs to compensate for the Law of Attraction."

I think I agree completely (theoretically) with the SR view - but I've never worked out the practical application so well - or worked with it in quite this way. But the thing that leaps out at me is what you hit upon intuitively in your story - "the bird was just as much "me" as my physical body. I could actually feel that we were the same being..." Here, in the original post, you go on to say, "your true identity is the dreamer having the dream, so you are the conscious container in which the entire dream world takes place. Your body-mind is your avatar in the dream world..."

That is so I believe - but what is this 'conscious container'? Is it identical with the dreaming 'avatar'? Many applications of the LoA have the implicit perspective of the avatar, not the container. I don't think they are really identical. It seems to me you've got a bit of having and eating cake here. Just as you don't really want a dinner of worms despite the seeming identity of you and the bird, I suspect the container may not want cake. Have you taken this into account? (If you have, a reference will suffice - and my apologies for not having read it yet. )

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by haydenlaw

Ok - I'm going to jump in here - tho I've only been reading all this for a couple of days and know I have more digesting to do. But in this post, Steve, you make a point that I think is really important. Let me back into it -
First, if I get it right, SR is more or less the context in which the LoA works. From reading some of your other posts, that seems to be what you're saying. "I’ve had to make major adjustments to my beliefs to compensate for the Law of Attraction."

I think I agree completely (theoretically) with the SR view - but I've never worked out the practical application so well - or worked with it in quite this way. But the thing that leaps out at me is what you hit upon intuitively in your story - "the bird was just as much "me" as my physical body. I could actually feel that we were the same being..." Here, in the original post, you go on to say, "your true identity is the dreamer having the dream, so you are the conscious container in which the entire dream world takes place. Your body-mind is your avatar in the dream world..."

That is so I believe - but what is this 'conscious container'? Is it identical with the dreaming 'avatar'? Many applications of the LoA have the implicit perspective of the avatar, not the container. I don't think they are really identical. It seems to me you've got a bit of having and eating cake here. Just as you don't really want a dinner of worms despite the seeming identity of you and the bird, I suspect the container may not want cake. Have you taken this into account? (If you have, a reference will suffice - and my apologies for not having read it yet. )

I don't buy the SR model where the creator is the creation. True being is the central core of the field of energy. So while the body of the observer is a creation like everything created within awareness, the energy being does have a central core observation point for observing creation it never becomes anything it creates.

The bird you may see and say "I'm as much that as I am this body" I consider is incorrect. The energy being is the present moment and that's all. It's not it's creations, it's creative and creator but it doesn't become what it creates.

It can and does observe creation, but that is all output from the energy being/consciousness. So in the SR model I subscribe to, the body I can sense and see is created just like everything in awarenes of that body (the body is the central observatin point) but is not the bird or the tree or the body itself.

Everything in awareness is created but not creator.

It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

Also in SR the LoA only works for the creator, no one else in awareness can use the LoA because all the other body's are creations themselves and have no creative power. The term LoA is a lame one within SR because the creator doesn't attract anything, it merely changes energy into new stuff.

Max

[zacan]

Steve,

I have read your articles about SR and while it is a subject I was wondering about since childhood (since I realised that other people may not really exist), I have always had some questions and apparent counter-arguments. Maybe you can clarify some.

- If I am the Supreme Consciousness, and you are a manifestation/representations of my thoughts, that means that you do not have any (true) thoughts, will and you do not have an perceptual independent existence. Could you really say the same thing about yourself from your point of view and accept that idea as being real? I mean, it is like me telling you or somebody else that I am just part of his intention-manifestation reality, something which I know it is not true, because I have a will independent from him (you).

- My mother just walked in my room a few minutes ago and asked me if I want something to eat. Using the logic of SR, her entrance and question was really something I intended/wanted/thought about... Which apparently is not true. I was not even hungry. Could I have thought about it, but I just wasn't aware of it? This contradicts the premises of SR.
The same question can be equated into numerous other, all having the same contradictions: How did I intend for children to die in Africa, and didn't know nothing about it? Have I really intended for the site www.stevepavlina.com to exist? Why did I think about stevepavlina and not "idsidmsaidd" or "johnfjddd" or "adriancornea", what's so special in the meaning of that arrangement of letters? etc. etc.

- Why does all my knowledge(or experience) start with my physical birth, if I have been eternal?

- And a big contradiction: How can time (past, future) not exist, even in a Subjective Reality? Time is defined as a sequence of events, a change in the state of things. Aren't these all available in SR?

I am a seeker of Truth, just like you are.

[Michael Chui]

I'll let Steve, or whoever, answer the rest of your questions, but I want to take this one:

Originally Posted by zacan

Why did I think about stevepavlina and not "idsidmsaidd" or "johnfjddd" or "adriancornea", what's so special in the meaning of that arrangement of letters? etc. etc.

There is nothing special about it. In fact, it is no more special than ---..-.--...

The meaning of a combination of letters is assigned by you. If I say "dyrbr[sb;oms", did you know I just typed "stevepavlina"? Meaning is where you find it.

[Sofia]

Couldn't the gut-level realization of your internalized experiential awareness, simply be a self-induced belief? In your contemplation during your bird-watching session, the preconceived ideas you had been entertaining in the prior months, probably kicked-in just then. To say that you had to live with the logic of it for a while before it snapped into experiential awareness, simply reiterates the self-propagated theory. Bottom-line: The 'awareness' that you experienced, was probably nothing more than an assimilated belief, externalizing itself.

The more important question is, without the need of having our own epiphanic "aha" moment, do we know who, or what, the Ultimate Dreamer is, or the purpose of this elaborate Dream in the first place?

[joecooool]

news flash to all you subjective reality people

subjective reality is self refuting

saying reality is subjective is the equivalent of saying you have no objective knowledge, which is the equivalent of saying you have no truth. and if you have no truth then you cant know whether reality is subjective or not.

so saying reality is subjective is actually saying reality is either subjective or objective. this becomes a non statement, its like saying the light is either on or off, it adds no new information. and becomes pointless.

socrates discovered all this a thousand years ago, and due to realizing it was a non statement simply choose to say nothing.

[Brutha]

subjective reality is self refuting

You claim that and go on to show that it's a tautology which is the opposite of self refuting.

this becomes a non statement, its like saying the light is either on or off, it adds no new information. and becomes pointless.

That a bit like the Zen teacher who answers on the question "what do you teach": "Nothing".
As western your response might be go home but there are still a lot of people out there you value Zen Buddhismus and similar spriritual thought.
The big advantage of that kind of eastern religion is that it's not wrong and maybe even right, when Christianity has problems with making false statements.

Looking at a Koan and saying it doesn't give me any information just misses the point.

But you have missed a point, subjective reality contains information that there is a reality (Cogito ergo sum).

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by joecooool

socrates discovered all this a thousand years ago, and due to realizing it was a non statement simply choose to say nothing.

If Socrates said nothing about it...then how do we even know Socrates discovered it?

[Jonathan Mead]

Subjective reality does not negate objective reality, neither does objective negate subjective. They are not actually at odds with each other.

However, reality is not a concept. That is why the masters chose silence.

[joecooool]

our knowledge starts at perception and ends at existence, it is bound in between those limits. the reason things like the objective / subjective reality debate, or solipsism etc... are unsolvable is because they are trying acquire knowledge before perception, which is impossible.

just like how the debate on god is unsolvable, its because its trying to acquire knowledge beyond existence.

complete knowledge of perception is impossible, because your perception will never fully be able to perceive itself. anymore then a pair of pliers could pinch itself.

and complete knowledge of existence is impossible because you would have to be outside of existence(not exist) to completely understand existence.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by joecooool

because your perception will never fully be able to perceive itself.

LOL.

Do try meditation someday.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

LOL.

Do try meditation someday.

Can you be certain that meditation, or any form of introspection, no matter how practiced, can allow full self-perception?

How could you know if you've successfully and fully illuminated the depth and breadth of your entire being? The issue with using the tool to observe itself, particularly with a tool such as the mind, is that it is very difficult to verify that what it reveals is accurate, especially since what it does best is revealing patterns by creating links wherever possible (and 'possible' doesn't necessarily equal 'appropriate' nor 'accurate').

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by joecooool

our knowledge starts at perception and ends at existence, it is bound in between those limits.

That's an interesting declaration. Explain it?

Originally Posted by joecooool

complete knowledge of perception is impossible, because your perception will never fully be able to perceive itself. anymore then a pair of pliers could pinch itself.

Explain how you are certain of this?

Originally Posted by joecooool

and complete knowledge of existence is impossible because you would have to be outside of existence(not exist) to completely understand existence.

While I know the proof for this one, I'm curious: do you?

[joecooool]

the terms objective and subjective are simply meant to define what is self evident, outside the mind ~ inside the mind.

the problem is what is self evident isn't necessarily true

but our knowledge of perception has yet to take us beyond what is self evident. current mainstream science and philosophy is still based on the self evident definitions of objective and subjective.

because any attempt to go beyond that has failed. subjective reality is self refuting, and solipsism is a vicious circle, etc..


i can lay out the circle of solipsism in about ten sentences if anyone wants, showing how it completely removes 'outside reality' and then completely restores it.


but the existence of this circle, of these problems in our understanding of perception tells us something. that perhaps either:
-its simply impossible to perceive our own perception in entirety
-or maybe their is some problem in our language, knowledge, logic, etc...
-or perhaps the problem is due to assuming an observer exists, full determinism refutes the existence of an observer

[Brutha]

our knowledge starts at perception and ends at existence, it is bound in between those limits. the reason things like the objective / subjective reality debate, or solipsism etc... are unsolvable is because they are trying acquire knowledge before perception, which is impossible.

Yes it's unsolvable.
If it is unresovable we don't go the way that Steve proposes: Sometimes take the objective and sometimes the subjective perspective.

Somehow that sounds more reasonable than deciding for either side what most people in the western tradition do.

subjective reality is self refuting,

You still have to show that. The thing you showed above was that it's true (a tautology).

i can lay out the circle of solipsism in about ten sentences if anyone wants, showing how it completely removes 'outside reality' and then completely restores it.

Solipsism is another concept than the subjective reality concept that Steve writes about.

-or maybe their is some problem in our language, knowledge, logic, etc...

There are logical reason that lead to complete nontrival theories being false.

If you want to have a theory you have to either live with incompletness or with false statements inside the theory (if the theory makes statements).

-or perhaps the problem is due to assuming an observer exists, full determinism refutes the existence of an observer

If you don't have an observer you won't get any obervastions and therefore theory about reality.

But then there is also no need for a theory.
I'll leave you a Koan:
One day as Manjusri stood outside the gate, the Buddha called to him, "Manjusri, Manjusri, why do you not enter?" Manjusri replied, "I do not see myself as outside. Why enter?"

[nownow]

Originally Posted by joecooool

the terms objective and subjective are simply meant to define what is self evident, outside the mind ~ inside the mind.

the problem is what is self evident isn't necessarily true

but our knowledge of perception has yet to take us beyond what is self evident. current mainstream science and philosophy is still based on the self evident definitions of objective and subjective.

because any attempt to go beyond that has failed. subjective reality is self refuting, and solipsism is a vicious circle, etc..


i can lay out the circle of solipsism in about ten sentences if anyone wants, showing how it completely removes 'outside reality' and then completely restores it.


but the existence of this circle, of these problems in our understanding of perception tells us something. that perhaps either:
-its simply impossible to perceive our own perception in entirety
-or maybe their is some problem in our language, knowledge, logic, etc...
-or perhaps the problem is due to assuming an observer exists, full determinism refutes the existence of an observer

The answer is nonduality. The subjective and objective are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. They depend on each other. To say that one is right and the other is wrong is like saying you can a positive force without a negative force. Perception IS duality so when you try to figure it out your chasing your tail which is your head.

[3mb]

Hi Steve,
Im curious about your perspective of subjective reality.
I'd be interested to know how you perceive/identify yourself sensorily, given that your considering Steve Pavlina as an avatar contained within you.
What do you reference sensorily in consciousness as 'you', what are 'you' thinking (sight,sound,smell,touch,taste etc.) when using the word 'I' if not your avatar.

Having experienced lucid dreams (very enjoyable) I understand being aware of yourself in bed whilst your dream you is active. However assuming that of this waking experience, I have no reference no memory of yet another awareness, a dreamer of this waking experience so to speak, hence my curiosity of how your doing it.

Best regards,
Richard.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Explain how you are certain of this?

My experience of meditation is that, while you certainly observe your thoughts, you aren't able to observe the you that is observing the thoughts.

Even if internal perception is not analogous to sight and you can somehow 'see your own eyeball' it seems like perceiving your entire mind would require a larger space than your mind to hold it, in much the same way that accurately modelling the universe would require a computer larger than the universe to do so.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Keith

My experience of meditation is that, while you certainly observe your thoughts, you aren't able to observe the you that is observing the thoughts.

I have some doubts about that. Because I have read about meditation exercises, where you are firstly to observe your own thoughts, and then to observe the observer, and then to observe the observer of the observer.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I have some doubts about that. Because I have read about meditation exercises, where you are firstly to observe your own thoughts, and then to observe the observer, and then to observe the observer of the observer.

You don't even need to meditate to do that. Just be aware of your awareness, and then be aware that you're aware of being aware of your awareness.

Unfortunately the subjective nature of such observations makes it impossible for the individual to determine if those observers exist as separate entities in some form, or if they're simply multiple aspects of one awareness.