Why Subjective Reality Is Delusional IMO

[SeaRod]

On one end, there really is no "objective" reality but on the other end, I can see "subjective" reality as a form of escapism. "Oh man reality is getting boring, oh wait I forgot... it is all a dream!!! I have a dream car, with dream money, and dream friends!!

I am a believer in seeing things as they are-- letting things 'be'. Let a plant be a plant; let a human being be a human being. What does the latter mean? Let a human being live an authentic existence. What does that mean? Letting go of all attachments and living in the present moment.

For now, this resonates with me intellectionally, spiritually, experientially and emotionally.

2 cents.

[SeaRod]

God either exists or doesn't exist. I don't understand why me believing in him has anything to do with it. Why do I have to believe in God before I receive any evidence?

A couple of remarks
1. First of all, Logic has its limits. If not then everything would be reduced and neatly packaged into an equation. We would be robots living out our own logical programming. We would never experience pain, we would never experience suffering-- just living a mechanical existence. Is that what a human being is?

2. If an infinite being did exist would a finite being be able to "exhaust" an infinite being's existence with his own finite mind? How's that for logic?

3. With your skeptical thinking (I have met several people like you), there will never EVER EVER be a sufficient logical explanation to convince you of an "Infinite Being". Even if you suppose this Infinite Being one day came down hovering from the sky, tapped you and said "Carl Carlson IV, Look I came down here to tell you that I exist." You would not believe it, you would say it must have been a dream... I was probably day dreaming... well no it was probably that coffee I had. Stupid coffee, they must of poured something in it."

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by Tanja

But if this reality is a dream of this powerful entity/the dreamer, then like in dreams --you are all avatars in your dreams--so we (OR) are dream avatars of the source. We're the sleeping source.
Wouldn't it be like you asking yourself in your dream for a permission to change something...
Maybe I'm just understanding it wrong tho..

Edit: I went on about it being a lucid dream, who knows why.. But I ask the same question ..sigh..nvm.

Well I think the physical laws of science are there on purpose as limitations. So YOU don't have the power to move a mountain with your mind. If God wanted to let you move the mountain you probably could. With enough physical energy of course you can move the mountain.

[zenrealized]

Originally Posted by SeaRod

A couple of remarks
1. First of all, Logic has its limits. If not then everything would be reduced and neatly packaged into an equation. We would be robots living out our own logical programming. We would never experience pain, we would never experience suffering-- just living a mechanical existence. Is that what a human being is?

2. If an infinite being did exist would a finite being be able to "exhaust" an infinite being's existence with his own finite mind? How's that for logic?

3. With your skeptical thinking (I have met several people like you), there will never EVER EVER be a sufficient logical explanation to convince you of an "Infinite Being". Even if you suppose this Infinite Being one day came down hovering from the sky, tapped you and said "Carl Carlson IV, Look I came down here to tell you that I exist." You would not believe it, you would say it must have been a dream... I was probably day dreaming... well no it was probably that coffee I had. Stupid coffee, they must of poured something in it."

I disagree with your first point. I think logically you can come to the conclusion by weighing things. You're not going to get the kind of hard evidence that Science might advocate. The evidence is logical. Here's a check list of questions.

1. Is there something in the universe with maximum mass?
2. Is there something with maximum heat?
3. Is there something with maximum gravity
4. Is there something with maximum velocity
5. Is there something with maximum time?
6. Is there something with maximum power?
7. Is there something with maximum intelligence?

The reason you go through those questions is that four of them are for sure true. When humans go to build something it's a form of progress. Eventually no more progress can be made. The result is God but it won't be God it's heading toward God. God has the total advantage and he cannot be overcome because He got there first.

[Carl Carlson IV]

Originally Posted by SeaRod

A couple of remarks
1. First of all, Logic has its limits. If not then everything would be reduced and neatly packaged into an equation. We would be robots living out our own logical programming. We would never experience pain, we would never experience suffering-- just living a mechanical existence. Is that what a human being is?

2. If an infinite being did exist would a finite being be able to "exhaust" an infinite being's existence with his own finite mind? How's that for logic?

3. With your skeptical thinking (I have met several people like you), there will never EVER EVER be a sufficient logical explanation to convince you of an "Infinite Being". Even if you suppose this Infinite Being one day came down hovering from the sky, tapped you and said "Carl Carlson IV, Look I came down here to tell you that I exist." You would not believe it, you would say it must have been a dream... I was probably day dreaming... well no it was probably that coffee I had. Stupid coffee, they must of poured something in it."

1. Logic has limits now sure. But can you imagine in 1,000 years? 1,000,000 years? We've learned so much in the past 100 years that it's safe to guess the things we will know in the future will be beyond science fiction to us today. However, I will grant you this one. I think there is a good chance we will never know some things such as - Where did this all come from? and those deep questions.

2. I'm not asking for exhaustion, I'm asking for evidence. There is a MAJOR difference there.

3. That's quite the assumption and character assessment. If God spoke to me personally, that would give me some reason and evidence to believe. If he tapped me on the shoulder and showed me he could walk through walls, he would sure gather my attention.

You're assuming I'm completely close minded to the concept which is simply false. I would consider myself an open minded truth seeker. I align what I know to be true based on the evidence my reality presents me. In light of new evidence, my map of reality would update. If God came to me it would be cause for an update.

[RomanHD]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You would be surprised.

Do check out some of the cross-cultural studies on religious experiences.

Umm, I know about cave paintings displaying similarly looking beings, and near-death people seeing while light. Is there anything else? Seriously, tell me - then we can discuss it.

[Acting Like Godot]

Oh, okay.

You could begin with Abraham Maslow.

Explore his hierarchy of needs.

Go to the top layer of the triangle, and meet the self-actualising folks.

A certain proportion of these self-actualising people have what is known as peak experiences.

Essentially, a peak experience is the modern psychologist's term for what, in religious terms, would be described as a divine revelation; or having a "vision"; or being in spiritual bliss; or enlightenment etc. They come in varying degrees of intensity.

Technical description of a peak experience:

Peak experience is a term used to describe certain transpersonal and ecstatic states, particularly ones tinged with themes of euphoria, harmonization and interconnectedness. Participants characterize these experiences, and the revelations imparted therein, as possessing an ineffably mystical (or overtly religious) quality or essence.

..... To some extent the term represents Maslow's attempt to "naturalize" those experiences which have generally been identified as religious experiences and whose origin has, by implication, been thought of as supernatural. Maslow (1970) believed that the origin, core and essence of every known "high religion" was "the private, lonely, personal illumination, revelation, or ecstasy of some acutely sensitive prophet or seer" (p. 19).

Peak experiences are described by Maslow as especially joyous and exciting moments in life, involving sudden feelings of intense happiness and well-being, wonder and awe, and possibly also involving an awareness of transcendental unity or knowledge of higher truth (as though perceiving the world from an altered, and often vastly profound and awe-inspiring perspective).

...... Maslow describes how the peak experience tends to be uplifting and ego-transcending; it releases creative energies; it affirms the meaning and value of existence; it gives a sense of purpose to the individual; it gives a feeling of integration; it leaves a permanent mark on the individual, evidently changing them for the better.

Peak experiences can be therapeutic in that they tend to increase the individual's free will, self-determination, creativity, and empathy. The highest peaks include "feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of great ecstasy and wonder and awe, and the loss of placing in time and space" (1970, p. 164).

When peak experiences are especially powerful, the sense of self dissolves into an awareness of a greater unity.

Very occasionally, a person's peak experience allegedly becomes his continuous state of being (Maslow discussed this too). Such a person is not described as self-actualising, he is described as self-actualised.

An example would be Gautama Siddharta (Buddha).

Anyway, we were talking about the cross-cultural aspect. So yes, peak experiences (or experiences of enlightenment, divine revelations etc) have been studied on a cross-cultural basis.

SpringerLink -

Research in the social scientific ... - Google Books

Peak-Experiences Among Japanese Youth ? Journal of Humanistic Psychology

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie <----- This article actually shows how we can go about assessing spiritual/mystical experiences, across different religions etc (which is why I include it as a cross-cultural example)

[RomanHD]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You could begin with Abraham Maslow.

Explore his hierarchy of needs.

Go to the top layer of the triangle, and meet the self-actualising folks.

A certain proportion of these self-actualising people have what is known as peak experiences.

...

SpringerLink -

Research in the social scientific ... - Google Books

Peak-Experiences Among Japanese Youth ? Journal of Humanistic Psychology

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie <----- This article actually shows how we can go about assessing spiritual/mystical experiences, across different religions etc (which is why I include it as a cross-cultural example)

Man, that's a lot to read, so I obviously didn't see it all. However, how exactly does this support subjective reality or the existence of anything supernatural?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

Man, that's a lot to read, so I obviously didn't see it all. However, how exactly does this support subjective reality or the existence of anything supernatural?

Actually we were discussing the last few sentences of your Post No. 80.

You can click on the little arrows of each quoted post - it will bring you to the previous related post, the previous related post and the previous related post. And you will be reminded of the history and context of the discussion.

[RomanHD]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Actually we were discussing the last few sentences of your Post No. 80.

You can click on the little arrows of each quoted post - it will bring you to the previous related post, the previous related post and the previous related post. And you will be reminded of the history and context of the discussion.

Oh, that.

You see, there probably are some general themes as to what people see and how do they feel when they have a religious experience. These people still however can't agree on anything specific, as whether there is God, where he cares about us, where he wants something from us, whether there is life after death, whether reality is subjective etc.

So, although these experiences are probably life-changing for the people who do have them, they are practically worthless to the rest of us.

[Jasper]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Very occasionally, a person's peak experience allegedly becomes his continuous state of being (Maslow discussed this too). Such a person is not described as self-actualising, he is described as self-actualised.

An example would be Gautama Siddharta (Buddha).

How can a peak experience be just that, if it's continious?
It's just experience then, isn't it?

Sometimes I think this whole peak experience stuff, ecstasy and all that, it's just a lure, something to strive for that can never be attained (but sells a lot of books in the process :P).

The only people that seem to have achieved it are those that are being held up as something unatainable... For most, their stories are told by others, with no means of verifying...

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by RomanHD

So, although these experiences are probably life-changing for the people who do have them, they are practically worthless to the rest of us.

Actually, we weren't discussing whether their experiences are practically worthless or practically useless to us.

We were discussing whether there is indeed an authentic mystical/spiritual aspect to reality. You then argued that:

(1) according to scientists, there is none; and
(2) the experiences of the mystics etc are inconsistent and unreliable - some see Jesus, others see Hindu deities etc.

My response to (1) was that (i) the vast majority of scientists do not investigate such questions, therefore their opinions on such questions are not necessarily any more informed than your grandmother's opinion; and (ii) from the tiny minority of scientists who do actually investigate mind, spirit and reality, there are indeed some interesting results that indicate the existence of the mystical and the spiritual.

My response to (2) was that there are cross-cultural studies on such matters, and there is a lot of consistency in the mystics' experiences, across different cultures.

Now, the practical usefulness or uselessness of their experiences is a different question altogether. Anyway, my two cents worth, on this question too.

I would say that their experiences are useful, if they have bothered to try to explain and teach something to others.

Joan of Arc is an example of a mystic who did not teach - therefore from a purely practical perspective, her experiences are useless to us. Buddha is an example of a mystic who taught extensively, and with a highly practical bent - therefore his experiences are very useful to us. Jesus falls somewhere in the middle ground - he taught much more than Joan, and much less than Buddha (a significant reason was his much shorter lifespan on Planet Earth).

Eckhart Tolle is an example of a modern mystic who teaches quite a fair bit. While the actual enlightenment experience probably remains very rare, I believe that many people would say that they have benefited from Eckhart's teachings, for example, because they learned to deal more effectively with their fears, anxieties and anger.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SeaRod

I am a believer in seeing things as they are-- letting things 'be'. Let a plant be a plant; let a human being be a human being. What does the latter mean? Let a human being live an authentic existence. What does that mean? Letting go of all attachments and living in the present moment.

This approach does have considerable merit, but it doesn't actually detract from the SR theory (in fact it supports it).

What does the presence-in-the-now approach promise? Peace, happiness, joy, satisfaction. Because you do not allow yourself to be disturbed by thoughts of the unhappy past; or by anxieties about the uncertain future. Etc etc. Instead you focus your attention what is immediately present before you.

But what does this mean? It means that by altering your thinking, and by changing where you place your attention, you have altered your reality (turning it into a more peaceful, happy one).

Once again, that's SR of course.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Carl Carlson IV

3. That's quite the assumption and character assessment. If God spoke to me personally, that would give me some reason and evidence to believe.

It all depends. You might well believe that you have gone insane.

I mean, some people (eg Donald Neale Walsh) do claim that God speaks to them personally all the time, and you do suspect that they are all insane, don't you?

When I first started messing around with the LOA and the occult, and getting some bizarre responses from the universe, I did consider the possibility that I might be going insane too. I then ran a sanity check on myself and concluded that I was completely sane.

Did I know how to look after myself? Yes.
Was I successfully coping with a complex, intellectually challenging job? Yes.
Could I express myself clearly and coherently? Yes.
Did I feel disoriented or confused? No.
Had any of my friends or relatives been saying that I have been behaving oddly? No.

Etc etc. These were some basic indicators of sanity that I used for myself.

[RomanHD]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

We were discussing whether there is indeed an authentic mystical/spiritual aspect to reality. You then argued that:

(1) according to scientists, there is none; and
(2) the experiences of the mystics etc are inconsistent and unreliable - some see Jesus, others see Hindu deities etc.

My response to (1) was that (i) the vast majority of scientists do not investigate such questions, therefore their opinions on such questions are not necessarily any more informed than your grandmother's opinion; and (ii) from the tiny minority of scientists who do actually investigate mind, spirit and reality, there are indeed some interesting results that indicate the existence of the mystical and the spiritual.

My response to (2) was that there are cross-cultural studies on such matters, and there is a lot of consistency in the mystics' experiences, across different cultures.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

When I first started messing around with the LOA and the occult, and getting some bizarre responses from the universe, I did consider the possibility that I might be going insane too. I then ran a sanity check on myself and concluded that I was completely sane.

All right, I admit you might have a point there. Subjective reality is total BS in my opinion, but there in fact might be some interesting things going on in our universe.

I also actually dabbled in LoA and the occult, and for me this was the reason I became a sceptic. I looked in lots of the books, tried some of the stuff, but none of it worked.

Maybe you can point me in a direction which will get me some bizarre responses from the universe?

[SeaRod]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

I disagree with your first point. I think logically you can come to the conclusion by weighing things. You're not going to get the kind of hard evidence that Science might advocate. The evidence is logical. Here's a check list of questions.

1. Is there something in the universe with maximum mass?
2. Is there something with maximum heat?
3. Is there something with maximum gravity
4. Is there something with maximum velocity
5. Is there something with maximum time?
6. Is there something with maximum power?
7. Is there something with maximum intelligence?

The reason you go through those questions is that four of them are for sure true. When humans go to build something it's a form of progress. Eventually no more progress can be made. The result is God but it won't be God it's heading toward God. God has the total advantage and he cannot be overcome because He got there first.

First of all, I am not a big fan of this approach-- using scientific tools/terminology to box in the existence of God. This line of questioning in its nature reduces God into scientific terms thus we would have an impersonal God (Deism). In a way, I am setting the standard in which God must fit in, and if he doesn't then he doesn't exist. And if he does, then he does exist because he fits my criterion for the existence of God. How absurd is that line of thinking? Where's the humility there?

Secondly, I believe a more optimal way of approaching this question of God is experientially. "You know what, If there was a God how would I know the criterion God must fulfill inorder to validate his existence? Well there's people out there that do believe in his existence, why? What is this faith? Let me be open-minded enough to experience this "faith".

Thirdly, I am a big fan of logic but I believe there are two types of 'logicians'-- the armchaired logician and the experiential logician. The arm-chaired logician is the one that "knows" everything-- he lives in the answers. While the experiential logician realizes that he doesn't know much-- he lives on genuine questioning. This goes back to the Greeks-- Sophistry and Socrates.

Fourth of all, faith is not completely throwing logic out the window. Ironically, it is a kind of humility and admittance to oneself that Logic has its limits. Logic should be used to approach faith, not invalidate it.

Lastly, we don't fully understand terms such as Time and Intelligence. What we deem intelligent is what is intelligent to us. Suppose there is a higher intelligence that we do not deem intelligent because we cannot comprehend it. Does that invalidate the existence of a Higher intelligence?

[darksage]

Edit:

[SeaRod]

Originally Posted by Carl Carlson IV

1. Logic has limits now sure. But can you imagine in 1,000 years? 1,000,000 years? We've learned so much in the past 100 years that it's safe to guess the things we will know in the future will be beyond science fiction to us today. However, I will grant you this one. I think there is a good chance we will never know some things such as - Where did this all come from? and those deep questions.

2. I'm not asking for exhaustion, I'm asking for evidence. There is a MAJOR difference there.

3. That's quite the assumption and character assessment. If God spoke to me personally, that would give me some reason and evidence to believe. If he tapped me on the shoulder and showed me he could walk through walls, he would sure gather my attention.

You're assuming I'm completely close minded to the concept which is simply false. I would consider myself an open minded truth seeker. I align what I know to be true based on the evidence my reality presents me. In light of new evidence, my map of reality would update. If God came to me it would be cause for an update.

1. Alot of scientist friends I have met, somehow have this same line of reasoning and blind faith that ONE day, just ONE day we will have all the answers to the world. We will have an equation to explain the universe-- now that right there is illogical. In the end, there are always more questions than answers.

2. Logic does not answer fundamental philosophical questions such as Why-- it can't and it is not suited for it. Logic has its limits.

3. Yep, God must fit in your Box, your criterion. Yep, I understand.

4. Open-mindedness is a good thing.

5. If God spoke to you then that would be evidence and some reason to believe. Ok then what would be your logical explanations for that experience? How would you logically validate it? Furthermore, there are people that believe that have heard God speak to them; are they all lunatics because there is not logical explanation? How does one logically explain "God" speaking to them? Through myths and stories... just maybe or through scientific and historical exactitudes?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SeaRod

5. If God spoke to you then that would be evidence and some reason to believe. Ok then what would be your logical explanations for that experience? How would you logically validate it? Furthermore, there are people that believe that have heard God speak to them; are they all lunatics because there is not logical explanation? How does one logically explain "God" speaking to them? Through myths and stories... just maybe or through scientific and historical exactitudes?

Well, John of God, a well-known Brazilian purported spiritual channeller of "angels" has allowed Harvard scientists to monitor his brainwaves while he channelled angels.

The Harvard scientists have reported that John's brainwaves were normal right until he began his channelling, whereupon his brainwaves accelerated to higher frequencies that are not seen in normal human beings. After he ceased his channelling and the "angels" left, his brainwaves rapidly fell back to normal.

As far as science goes, that's the kind of discovery you can accomplish (for whatever it's worth).

[RomanHD]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Well, John of God, a well-known Brazilian purported spiritual channeller of "angels" has allowed Harvard scientists to monitor his brainwaves while he channelled angels.

The Harvard scientists have reported that John's brainwaves were normal right until he began his channelling, whereupon his brainwaves accelerated to higher frequencies that are not seen in normal human beings. After he ceased his channelling and the "angels" left, his brainwaves rapidly fell back to normal.

As far as science goes, that's the kind of discovery you can accomplish (for whatever it's worth).

Godot, I'm still waiting for you to point me in a direction of the occult which actually works

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

So anyway now that I have gotten the entire substance of the universe to it's lowest level I will show you how if you build up from that singular fact of information existing no matter what that you end up developing our current reality and the elimination of a subjective reality as separate from physical reality. Since information exists from both perspectives how we perceive that information has no basis in reality. All our lenses for our perception are influenced by the physical processes and mental value systems that we create to interpret it.

the act of observing is what creates a reality. we filter the infinite into what we think is real and then project that as objective reality.

To extend the consciousness forever and to truly enter a subjective reality. This path leads to faith that something or someone is looking out for us or knows we are here. The only way it doesn't is if we can't imagine something smarter than ourselves.

Beside Steve's SR concepts, there is actually a subjective experience non-the less. It is only your experience. There is no way to have an objective experience. To view the "outside" world as not objects is to know the world is made up of your observations. These observations judge and pick out what make makes sense to you in a subjective way and then you can look at the world as objects. but those objects are only there because you filtered out everything else that doesn't make sense and collapsed the infinite into something imagined so you can have a subjective experience. Yes, it is delusional to do this. We lie to ourselves all the time by making up rules for the reality we experience. We deluded ourselves in a subjective experience of the infinite. There is no way to have an objective experience, because you are always entangled with what is being experienced. A pure stand alone object doesn't exist without you observing it - it doesn't exist without you.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

I believe that this reality is an objective reality on purpose possibly as a test. Our imaginations are unbounded by limitations...

unbounded by limitations? that's contradictory. It's not a test - it's what you decided to experience. You made up rules or agreed to them and are seeing the results of those rules "out there".

but our willingness to hold ourselves to noble principles is being tested. In a subjective reality there would be no constraints and therefore the effort required to solve problems would not be an effort at all. It would also be instant. How would that be a test if it were that easy?

It can be instant. The issue is that we can't break too many of our own rules, or we would go bonkers. There is a way to be, that is effortless and has no "problems" - just a bunch of experiences and transformations.

I think everything points to our purpose being to find out for ourselves why certain ways of being lead to the best possible outcome. If I were God how else would I know if I wanted to be friends with someone unless I allowed them to have the choice to make their own decisions and figure it out for themselves.

yes - let them be. Actually there is no way to enforce your choice on someone else anyway.

If someone offers to let you live in their house and you break all their stuff how could you ever get them out of your house if you never told them what the rules were before they came in?

So yes our suffering is a test of our character and I believe in God. I think it's about time we all showed God what we are capable of. Let's make Dad proud!!!!

God is not looking for us to perform or be something special. In fact probably the opposite. Which would be surrendering and being humble enough to say "I don't know" or "Thy will be done". you can not be arrogant about pleasing God because that will cause you to try to assume you know better and put you in a state of controlling everything to make sure it's what you think it all should be.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

Well let's consider this. If someone calls SR delusional and they are wrong it's an opinion. If God exists and you don't have enough respect to even type out his full game it shows you aren't humble enough to even consider the possibility that you are wrong. You do this by not typing out the full name. So you can say all you want but you know what? The reason God would garner power and worship is that it's not a garnering for power and worship in the way you are thinking of it. It's a demand for respect. If God does exist I assure you that you will bow.

I assume you read the Bible. I don't know the story but maybe you can source it. Jesus was approached by some saying "there are some people performing miracles but not in your name. should we stone them or something?" Jesus basically said something like - if they are performing miracles that comes from the same source and as such they are doing it in my name, regardless of what word comes out of their mouth.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

God doesn't need worship. He doesn't need anything.

But you wrote earlier "Let's make him proud" (?)

What he wants is something he can't create. He wants you to make the choice to love Him. These are my opinions and conclusions and the reason I can understand them is I tried to imagine what I would want if I were God.

But you just wrote, "He doesn't need anything". If he doesn't need anything, why would he want?

I guess I would want friends that cared about me. In order to know if that they really cared I would have to see if they could find me in my creations and through my work. That faith would be proof that I had a real friend. I would gain as much as I gave away.

You are describing a relationship to God. Do you know how to love this God? Is that not to just love yourself? Where love is really pure awareness without any hint of emotion (judgments).

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Piercetheveil

1=Not spelling out the name of G-d comes from the Jews. (I spent my college years and a following decade in youth ministry knee deep in translation theory and Hebrew/Greek). It might deepen your 'awe' factor by reading about the name alone. It did mine.

Wasn't the name "Yaweh"? Or heck, Adonai, Elohim, Lord, Jehovah, Allah?

The Tao that can be named is not the Tao.

Same with God, to me, in a way. The name itself means nothing. It actually causes a limitation by naming it becomes concept.

And what is it about "thou shall not worship false idols"? Wouldn't needing to insist there is a "proper" name for God kind of like worshiping a false idol?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

I picture it like a threshold of combinations of information eventually result in enough power where everything you dream about is possible if you wanted to create it.

this is already true. we have, however, also gotten limited by agreeing to a bunch of rules that others put into the system.

The thing is though I don't think you can get a subjective reality through an objective reality unless it was created in a subjective reality.

then you are ok with subjective reality - as this reads like it all stems from subjective reality.

That random combination of what is possible makes the source of everything inherent and it's manifestation in the physical objective reality that we see are the separations in space of the combinations of that possibility.

what is "that random combination"? The source of everything as infinite is what is and is also absolutely nothing without you taking on an experience born of making distinctions to actually observe a reality based on some rules that are imagined, made up, agreed to and embodied.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Bradshaw

The thing is, taking on a subjective reality perspective still works. It still brings results when you act as if everything is a dream. Delusional? Maybe, but if it works...

Still, I feel that Steve's subjective reality perspective is not 100% truth, but truth is relative anyway. SR is pretty close, but I feel there is something missing that would lead to greater joy, I'm just not quite sure what it is.

maybe SR can be used to get out of the head and into the heart - then the missing piece is found withing (subjective) and no need to be analyzing if it is true or not. But it does seem like a lot of this forum likes to take SR into the head and think about it. That will not feel complete.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by zenrealized

What is missing is asking for permission to alter the objective reality subjectively. If this reality is the subjective dream of a super powerful entity in order to change or influence it subjectively you would need permission from the source of it.

Or you yield or surrender to the source. You don't ask it for your permission, you allow it to put you in the state of grace that is available to everyone right now. And it is not with asking to change the subjective dream into something you think would be better. It is with surrender to the point that grace comes to you and the subjective experience unfolds in glory that you couldn't even imagine.

If you make a list of all the things you want, and then ask permission to alter things to do that - you may get some of that. But if, you totally let go and allow - source will open up the world to you beyond that list you put into the system. It knows more what you would like, than you do. To get all that, you must give up wanting to alter or influence.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Mounds

In a subjective reality, pretty much anything goes. The only subjective reality I've ever experienced though is the one I visit when I go to sleep at night (the one in my brain )

-Tim

However, you experience reality subjectively!!! There is no other way to have the experience you are having. And that includes when you are awake. It is your subjective/unique take on what only you are experiencing. You can not have an objective experience of what you think reality is - because it's what you think or perceive it to be for you.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Mounds

It's not even so much that I reject God. I like to say i have an "abscence of beleif". Trust me, that's lots of fun

I think absence of belief gets you a lot closer to God than trying to believe something. As soon as you say "I know what IT is" - the you are cooked.