What is the Point of Thinking of Reality as a Dream?

[Mounds]

In the spirit of only seeing what we believe to be possible, I never in a million years thought that there were these types of beliefs out there. And yet, here they are!

[nklplnt]

Originally Posted by Mounds

In the spirit of only seeing what we believe to be possible, I never in a million years thought that there were these types of beliefs out there. And yet, here they are!

But you believe that you can see things that you don't believe to be possible! Or else you wouldn't be seeing them!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by nklplnt

But you believe that you can see things that you don't believe to be possible! Or else you wouldn't be seeing them!

Well, strictly speaking, he only believes that other people believe these things are possible, and he's seeing those people. That's not the same as seeing the things those people believe.

[Betrade]

Originally Posted by Mounds

In the spirit of only seeing what we believe to be possible, I never in a million years thought that there were these types of beliefs out there. And yet, here they are!

Ha!!!

[Betrade]

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, strictly speaking, he only believes that other people believe these things are possible, and he's seeing those people. That's not the same as seeing the things those people believe.

Can you not see how convoluted this gets by your own words??

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Betrade

Can you not see how convoluted this gets by your own words??

Um, yes, Betrade. It was humor - awrk! But I wasn't "just kidding," of course.

[curiouslyrandom]

Beltrade, you may be laughing and smiling, but your phrasing is aggressively negative. I'm sorry if you feel I've misunderstood you, I'm just going by what I read. It's what I do for a living.

Please note that I put "see" in quotes. Of course they saw the ships. They had no point of reference for those ships. Small boats? sure, but ships to that scale, coming from that distance and direction? Probably not.

Whether or not this happened I cannot say, but I do find that people tend to ignore that which they do not recognize. They gloss over it until it's made obvious to them.

[Betrade]

Originally Posted by Angela

Um, yes, Betrade. It was humor - awrk! But I wasn't "just kidding," of course.

point taken!!

[Betrade]

Originally Posted by curiouslyrandom

Beltrade, you may be laughing and smiling, but your phrasing is aggressively negative. I'm sorry if you feel I've misunderstood you, I'm just going by what I read. It's what I do for a living.

Please note that I put "see" in quotes. Of course they saw the ships. They had no point of reference for those ships. Small boats? sure, but ships to that scale, coming from that distance and direction? Probably not.

Whether or not this happened I cannot say, but I do find that people tend to ignore that which they do not recognize. They gloss over it until it's made obvious to them.

Aggressively negative?? Not at all. I just have to call BS on that story. It seemed like a stretch and as it turns out it was. There is no real source to back it up other than a few claims by; well, no one knows who.

I'm thinkin' of the first time I saw the Rockies as a reference point. I live in a state where our "mountains" (the Appalachians) are nothing but small foothills in comparison, but although I had never seen mountains of such magnitude before they were crystal clear and quite visible; to say the least. In fact, it would have been absolutely impossible NOT to see them.

Now in comparison, if certain Indians or natives (or anyone for that matter) were familiar with canoes of different sizes there is no reason to believe that the ability to see a huge ship (by their standards) would somehow be mentally blocked out simply because they had never seen or heard of them before. It's just a ridiculous concept and the people who put that story out there invited this criticism themselves by presenting it as fact when it's just a nice story with no basis in reality.

I guess my question regarding this is, why put out fiction (presented as fact) to make a point?? It actually makes the whole thing questionable as far as I can tell. If that part isn't true then how many other inaccurate "facts" were also presented??

I was taught from an early age to believe nothing I hear, half of what I see and to question anything that doesn't pass the smell test, so I do when necessary. That's not negative and certainly isn't aggressive. It's just my way of not being fooled or falling into the trap of believing things that in all likelihood, just aren't true. I would rather question things than go on believing things that aren't true.

As I mentioned before, I was beginning to buy into this whole SR/LOA/IM thing a few years back but my personal experience and logic have led me to believe otherwise. I believe these things can be cool thought experiments or exercises; and even tools under certain circumstances, but I can't take them for actual truth or "laws" because it can be easily proven that they aren't laws. Laws follow certain patterns and can be tracked, documented and even have predictions based on them. They also work every time. As I also said before, cause and effect is a "law" and I put much more stock into that because of that. That's also an excellent tool for many things.

SR probably cannot be completely disproven but it can't be proven either. Like so many things it has to be taken on faith. I don't knock anyone for believing in it. If it works for you than go on believing. I just don't believe in it myself.

[Boldnut]

Originally Posted by Angela

Betrade, I don't believe there's any reason why you should think any differently than you do, and I'm not interested in convincing you of anything. I'm just noticing that your questions here have been addressed in the forums at length, with particular clarity from Acting Like Godot, so if you're authentically interested in knowing the answers, you might want to take a look at his concise explanations -- especially on the subject quoted here. (It kind of sounds like you've made up your mind, though.)

Could you please link me to those posts?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Boldnut

Could you please link me to those posts?

I'm sorry, I'm not inspired to do the work for you, but I can assure you it won't be hard for you to find them. Do an advanced forum search (for one word searches) or google site search if you'd like to specify multiple word searches. You can't swing a cat without hitting a great post by ALG on the subject of subjective reality or the law of attraction.

[Boldnut]

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm sorry, I'm not inspired to do the work for you, but I can assure you it won't be hard for you to find them. Do an advanced forum search (for one word searches) or google site search if you'd like to specify multiple word searches. You can't swing a cat without hitting a great post by ALG on the subject of subjective reality or the law of attraction.

Already did that, there are 20 pages of posts, mentioning "subjective reality" by Acting Like Godot. I thought you might give fellow soul a hand and at least point me to the right thread

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Boldnut

Already did that, there are 20 pages of posts, mentioning "subjective reality" by Acting Like Godot. I thought you might give fellow soul a hand and at least point me to the right thread

When I come across a particularly great one, I'll link it to you.

REMEMBER (I'm tattooing this here for a future search. )

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Betrade

SR probably cannot be completely disproven but it can't be proven either ....

Objective reality can be completely disproven.

More precisely, there is no evidence for it at all.

No evidence that you can ever know or perceive or understand, anyway.

For if you knew it, or perceived it, or understood, then it would be subjective.

After all, your knowledge, perception and understanding are all processes of your mind, in other words, they are subjective.

[moonrambler]

I didn't click with the idea of SR until reading Steve's blog about seeing life as a dream. That worked a lot better for me.

Here's one thing I've gotten out of thinking of reality as a dream. It's allowed me to more clearly see my own layer of reality that I've created underneath the outside reality. I'm asking myself, "What's underneath this?" at times. It allows me to see more clearly how and why I am creating certain situations if I realize it's all me.

It's mellowed me out too about trying to fix other people's problems or argue with people about their IMO *mistaken* beliefs I see it here on the forum, where I can view somebody's opinion that I disagree with as a reflection of something I believe on some level, and that the running argument between community members sometimes is noise, it's my mind running through all this stuff. It makes it more clear what statements push my buttons, and I can ask, "What's underneath this?"

[catalyst]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Objective reality can be completely disproven.

More precisely, there is no evidence for it at all.

No evidence that you can ever know or perceive or understand, anyway.

This sounds more appropriate for subjectively reality. Saying reality is subjective is an objective statement is it not?

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

For if you knew it, or perceived it, or understood, then it would be subjective.

After all, your knowledge, perception and understanding are all processes of your mind, in other words, they are subjective.

This sounds like an objective statement to me.

[Futhark]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Objective reality can be completely disproven.

More precisely, there is no evidence for it at all.

No evidence that you can ever know or perceive or understand, anyway.

For if you knew it, or perceived it, or understood, then it would be subjective.

After all, your knowledge, perception and understanding are all processes of your mind, in other words, they are subjective.

It took me a long time to get over the semantics of the philosophy of perception.

But now I believe I understand it much better. Your brain processes things differently than everyone else, so no two people see the same colors, but we are close. But we still have enough similarities to be able to assign the word "green" to grass. I believe there is something very beautiful and profound in how we all see something differently, but we all manage to pretty much agree on the base idea of the color of grass.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by catalyst

This sounds like an objective statement to me.

Is that how it sounds to you?

That is how you perceive it?

That is how your mind interprets it?

That is the meaning your consciousness has attached to it?

Oh, okay then.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Futhark

I believe there is something very beautiful and profound in how we all see something differently, but we all manage to pretty much agree on the base idea of the color of grass.

Indeed .... Sometimes objectivity just means the lowest common denominator of perception and interpretation, among a subjectively selected group of subjective perceivers.

At other times, objectivity just means the determination of a conclusion, based on subjectively selected criteria.

[Futhark]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

At other times, objectivity just means the determination of a conclusion, based on subjectively selected criteria.

Yes, "reality" seems to just be a universal consensus based on sheer numbers of how the world works.

The more people believe that "money solves everything", the more real it will be.

The changers in the world are the ones that realize that there is indeed a consensus reality, but have enough insight to offer tricks, detours, solutions based on this universal reality.

Slowly, then, reality changes based on what processes they revealed and modified in the world. It is all a great average.

[James81]

Everytime I hear this song, I think of this forum:

YouTube - Nelly - Just a dream (Lyrics)

[Lucidism]

Perhaps the point is just because it's fun. Remember being a kid and having fun was always the #1 priority?

Row, Row, Row, your boat,
gently down the stream,
merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
life is but a dream!

[munish]

There is no point. That's why Steve also does not think it is a dream.

You need to change your OS.

Have you read Subjective Objectivity Article?