Subjective Reality and Nonviolence (Blog)

[Mr. Punch]

I have become increasingly uneasy with Steve's postings and much of the spiritual stuff going on in these forums. This post on the School Massacre and the following debate has led me to follow my instinct and I have this to say:

I don't get the concept of Enlightenment as an ever increasing detachment from your surroundings and reality. I guess it comes from the sound principles that every change in you life and attitudes must begin with yourself and that it is desirable not to be too dependant on others; that if a person hurts you, you shouldn't harbor resentment but rather sort it out or move along.

It doesn't follow, however, that you should block yourself off from all grief and compassion. Also, the peculiar disinterest in the news really puzzles me. Of course, the quality of specific newssources is debatable and you should never become addicted to it in the sense that it causes depression or endless consumption.

But OK, I don't share Steve and others beliefs in an afterlife and astral planes and ghosts. Apparently Steve is under the assumption that he is communicating with the dead however difficult that is for me as an atheist to grasp. Maybe that provides some comfort.

[Dr Gonzo]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Everyone you know, including you, IS going to die.

From fight club: "First you have to give up. First, you have to know, not fear, know that someday you are going to die. Until you know that, you are useless."

The fear of death is such that most people choose to ignore the fact they are going to die and behave as though they were immortal. Of course what they don't realise is they actually are.

Gonzo

[Dr Gonzo]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

This physical world is a fun and exciting place to visit, but it's still only a visit.

I heard this summed up very succinctly recently, and it's a quote I really like, I wonder where it originated:

"You are not a physical being having a spiritual experience, you are a spiritual being having a physical experience"

Gonzo

[uberinquisitive]

Three months ago, my boyfriend was killed violently and suddenly. The fact that he is dead pales in comparison to how he died. I won't go into details, but he suffered.

Especially in the past 20-30 years, there has been a lot of research on the grieving process after a homicide/suicide. Experts call it "complicated grief" because it is indeed more complicated than other death-related grief.

When a loved one is killed by homicide or suicide...you go into shock because the overwhelming majority of cases are sudden and unexpected. There is no way to psychologically prepare. Therefore, when the event happens, your brain is overloaded with too much information/emotion/experience. And, its survival mechanism is to temporarily shut down. Many people (myself included) can't really remember the first few days after I heard the news. Co-workers later told me that they knew something was wrong because I was like a zombie.

And, during this time when your brain is least able to function...you have to deal with police. Federal agents. Coroner's office. Sometimes the media. They are just doing their job, but it adds to the overload in your mind.

You need to deal with family and friends, who are also grieving. Overload, overload, overload.

Everything and anything triggers memories about your loved one. Waking up in the morning next to an empty bed. The toothbrush that belonged to him. Overload, overload, overload.

I don't have a problem with subjective reality. It has some interesting and valid points. But, from a practical standpoint, it is one of the weakest and ineffective ways to "get over" your loved ones homicide or suicide.

I know because, again, I experienced it first hand. I repeated to myself, over and over: "this is an event that you choose to label as the worst experience of your life." It didn't work, because your shut-down intellect is warring with your much stronger, chaotic emotions. You say the words, but they are just words.

Also, what happened instead was that subjective reality added to the overload. Instead of venting my emotions in manageable bits and pieces, I kept trying to tell myself to treat it like a neutral event, to analyze the meaning. So, the overload just kept backlogging, until I was so overwhelmed that I considered suicide to escape the pressure and confusion inside me.

From suicide literature I've read...this isn't an uncommon reaction when someone tries to repress emotions after an extremely traumatizing event.

My recovery plan is the plan of action most recommended by grief therapists, and other survivors of a loved one's murder/suicide. What I did was research what worked best for other people, compiled every technique, and then aggressively pursue all these different ways concurrently.

I credit my recovery on EFT, mixed with talk therapy, reading books about grief and recovery, reading clinical articles about violent deaths, going to group sessions of other survivors, and constantly talking and reaching out to family and friends. I took medication. I allowed myself to totally feel everything. I allowed myself to obsess. I allowed myself to feel every and any emotion without self-judgement. This multi-faceted approach allowed me to process the backlog in a very short time, as well as digest everything else.

By the end of month 2, I was able to pull myself out of the shock and the darkest parts of the complicated grief. I'm proud to say that this is absolutely phenomenal in terms of quickness.

But I wonder how much more quickly I could have pulled out, if I hadn't started out using subjective reality.

It was then, and only then, that I was able to use aspects of subjective reality with good results. I have found happiness again, including a new boyfriend. In fact, I'm happier now than ever.

Statistically, there is a high possibility of relapse at the one-year mark. If that happens, I'm not going to rigidly stick to subjective reality to get through that hump - I'm going to do what works.

The VTech shootings triggered a post-traumatic stress flashback for me (I was the one who "found" my boyfriend's body). But otherwise, the actual event didn't make me feel any outrage. Instead, I felt deep and organic empathy.

I see a lot of book-smart but real-experience-ignorant people talking about what death, grief, and compassion is and is not. And then offering subjective reality as the most awesome choice.

Well, I can personally attest: subjective reality is a VERY ineffective method to use in this crisis situation. I mean, if you're very dedicated to it, you can use it...but why not use a more efficient, powerful combination of methods (as I've outlined above)?

But of course...what do I know? I only lived it and overcame it very successfully.

[gwenbell]

Hi Steve and others,
I just want to thank Steve for his post in response to Virginia Tech (and violence in ourselves).

Steve: I quote you and further discuss this question of taking personal responsibility for our own actions/words/deeds in a post I spent most of yesterday composing for Buddhist Geeks. It's already generating discussion over in our forums and this isn't to direct all of your readers over to it, but just to let you know that your work is doing a whole lot of good in the world. We're reading. And much of what I've read on your blog so far has the power in it to transform lives.

Thank you for leading the way.

-Gwen

[betlamed]

uberinquisitive,

I won't try to pretend like I know what you went through.

I think you're raising a very important point: SR is not a method for personal development -- it won't help you, especially not in a moment of crisis.

SR is an axiom. You either believe in subjective or objective reality (or you believe in dualism).

Of course, different strategies follow from which approach you take. EFT or NLP are only meaningful in a subjective world. That's why I think that SR is not only true (in the sense of, the truth I chose) but also a very useful concept.

I really wouldn't know how to fit any psychological method into a purely objective concept.

[stevehalas]

...UberInquisitive...

Thanks for sharing. I think your post exposes a vital aspect of Subjective Reality in that its effectiveness is not the same for everyone and in every situation.

First and foremost, I feel it important to say that I don't share fully SteveP's view of SR as the "end-all be-all" of reality. Rather, I believe that SR is intermixed with Objective Reality like a plasma (SteveP alluded to this briefly in a previous post or podcast... I call it the "Slurpee" theory of Reality

Our higher selves can develop the ability to influence greater amounts (i.e. distance and volume) of Objective Reality by developing our awareness and ability to influence larger amounts of Subjective Reality. As we progress in our development, Total Reality (both Subjective and Objective) becomes more "effective" in our lives.

In reading Uber's situation where her boyfriend was brutally killed and she was the first person to find the body, I am reminded of the section in "The Secret" which shows how people, animals, etc. orient their body (brain synapses, hormones) emotions and spiritual energy to anticipate and attract the object of their love/attention. When that object is withdrawn suddenly - and in this case, violently - there is disorientation on all levels. This is also true (to lesser degrees) to our reactions to the VT shooting.

People like Steve and Erin have taken proactive steps in their lives to minimize this disorientation through the development of their spiritual and astral awareness. This discipline (I believe) has re-programmed their brain to accept death without much grief and has trained their spirits to reach further into time/space/reality to connect with those who have removed themselves from our physical reality.

As such, Steve is able to use SR in this situation because the range and depth of his personal practice has prepared him for its application in this situation. Unfortunately, this also gives Steve's comments a level of distance that can be perceived as cold or indifferent (I've seen a similar trend within Buddhist texts).

Other people (myself included) have yet to develop such range and depth within their SR discipline and would naturally feel a range of physical, emotional and spiritual effects that have been expressed throughout this forum thread.

So, I believe Steve when he says that the loss of his children or Erin would not be (too) traumatic. However, I also believe that some of us may not choose to follow in Steve's footsteps and will, later in life, look back on these traumatic experiences (like the VT shooting or Uber's experience) as unique and empowering.

To that degree, I send my best wishes to UberInquisitive for that conclusion and I wish everyone else the best as they develop the range and effectiveness of their own Subject Reality.


...Steve Halas....

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo

I heard this summed up very succinctly recently, and it's a quote I really like, I wonder where it originated:

"You are not a physical being having a spiritual experience, you are a spiritual being having a physical experience"

Gonzo

Teilhard de Chardin is the only attribution I've ever seen. Wikiquote states that it is often misattributed to Wayne Dyer.

[somiab1]

Not enough!-- It is not enough to prove something, one also has to seduce or elevate people to it. That is why the man of knowledge should learn how to speak his wisdom: and often in such a way that it sounds like folly!

Nietzsche

Steve, I totally understand and feel very much the same, about what happend, as yourself. Great post. Well done.

Somi

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Mr. Punch

I don't get the concept of Enlightenment as an ever increasing detachment from your surroundings and reality.

How about thinking of enlightenment as not adding anything to what is happening and just dealing with what is there.

Moments do not contain horror, grief, and saddness unless you put it there. You can add them if you want, and there is nothing wrong with adding them, just know that you're chosing to add those emotions into the moment. Sometimes it is wonderful to experience those emotions.

And if you know you're choosing to experience certain emotions, you can change your choice and switch to different emotions when you want to. Many people I'm sure will be walking around in a cloud of saddness for days and blame it on world events. Not so. You choose to feel what you feel.

[MgC]

Well, this is my first post. I have been reading for many months, and I am grateful, for I have grown through reading these posts. So, thank you Steve!
As I was reading through Steve's blog about SR, and then reading through the pages of posts, our turtle woke up. He/she has been sleeping since November. I have tried many times to wake him/her up in the past month, all to no avail. That turtle had its own internal clock. But now our turtle is awake.
I also have no television. I remember being told of the planes flying into the Twin Towers on 9/11. So, the morning after the shootings, I was told at the school where I work about Virginia Tech. Sometimes I feel like a sponge that sucks up the emotions and the fears of the world around me.....but really they are my own fears and my own emotions. I know that.
The turtle, the shootings, my anger, the beauty of life, it is all intermingled. I know this to be true. But I do believe there is more than just my perception, there is yours and Steve's and the worlds. All are valid, all are irrelevant. What is just is.
Many, many, many years/lifetimes ago I was a victim (funny word) of a violent crime. Years/lifetimes later I realized that I also was the perpetrator. Not in the "reality" version, but in the REALITY version. I realized that I had all of it within myself...victim, perpetrator, innocent (so many funny words) bystander. That was a moment I remember. I have only tried to explain this to a few people, because when I say that I could be that person also, people tend to get a bit freaked. Too bad for them.
I see this within myself still. As Jung called it, the shadow. And my shadow acts out still, as anger toward my child, or my husband, or myself. And I feel it, every painful aspect I can. And sometimes it is too much, and I stuff it. I am oh so imperfect.
But still, the turtle is awake and I am glad. As I read through the list of victims from Virginia Tech, and some words their families had put in about them, I cried. I am human, and I am OK with that. Whether it's subjective or objective thinking that I use, I can't really say. I do the best I can each day to move forward (or maybe it's backward).
And when I die, I will be the one throwing the party, because wherever I'm going, it sure feels like home.
Thank you to all for posting such a lively debate.

MgC

[hadashi]

Originally Posted by Dharma

Moments do not contain horror, grief, and sadness unless you put it there. You can add them if you want, and there is nothing wrong with adding them, just know that you're choosing to add those emotions into the moment. Sometimes it is wonderful to experience those emotions.

And if you know you're choosing to experience certain emotions, you can change your choice and switch to different emotions when you want to. Many people I'm sure will be walking around in a cloud of sadness for days and blame it on world events. Not so. You choose to feel what you feel.

I can remember when this principle explained using the analogy of a football match. Afterwards, half of the spectators return home elated, half distraught ... and yet all watched the same game!

Indeed, you choose how you will feel.

I guess this really had an impact on me because of the disappointment I felt in 1974 and then in 1978 when Holland lost in the final of the world soccer tournament.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by machine

So the whole presumption that 'consciousness' is searching for what we think is righteous is flawed. You can't tell me being good is better than being bad or that selflessness is better than selfishness if you are talking from a subjective reality point of view.

What if we decide subjectively, using SR, that life is objective?

As soon as you move into the realm of subjectivity all logic is thrown out the window. It becomes The Tao - the unspeakable.

It's an infinite loop, an infinitely recursive reasoning loop.

It's like in math where you derive the result that 1=0. As soon as you've derived that 1=0, you can literally derive anything you want. Absolutely anything. Things you can imagine, things you happen upon accidentally from motions that come from whatever source or no source. There is no limit to the illogicalness you can create. The same thing happens with SR.

Not to imply I don't like SR In a certain way I think it says something true that is also false, something deeply meaningful that is intentionally simple-minded.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by uberinquisitive

I allowed myself to totally feel everything. I allowed myself to obsess. I allowed myself to feel every and any emotion without self-judgement. This multi-faceted approach allowed me to process the backlog in a very short time, as well as digest everything else.

To me, the statement I bolded is the essense of personal development.

A person is a sculpture. Not a generic block of clay, and not nothing. A person is a sculpture somewhere in the middle, and each person creates themselves how they want themselves to be. This is done by adding clay and taking away clay. It's done by allowing and renouncing. By the father and the mother. The Yin and the Yang.

Allowing yourself to be yourself is discovering some new piece of clay and adding it to your sculpture, renouncing is taking a tool and carving out a detail, or maybe removing a big piece of clay here and there. Add and subtract. Add and subtract. Constantly sculpting yourself in the image of God - "God" being your opinion on perfection.

Repression is pretending a certain part of the sculpture doesn't exist, but pretending that something doesn't exist doesn't make it stop existing. You either believe it exists or it doesn't. If you have to repress something, you already believe in it, so you might as well stop repressing. If you truly want to cut it off, you must first bring it into view and accept it as part of the whole. Then you can start using your scalpel of renunciation.

We are shattered consciousness right now, but eventually we'll unite back together into the macro-sculpture to appreciate the big picture in its entirety, and to see what our brothers and sisters created with their free will. No doubt once we have thoroughly appreciated our collective art we will dive back in to make some more somehow, this time with a few new twists. It's all in good fun so remember that when you're sad, and then allow yourself to be sad. And then renunciate sadness for awhile. And then be happy that such a process is possible.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by yossarian

As soon as you move into the realm of subjectivity all logic is thrown out the window. It becomes The Tao - the unspeakable.

What? How is logic thrown out the window? Logic works just as well in Subjective Reality as it does in an objective frame of mind. They have nothing to do with one another. Syllogisms maintain their soundness in any reality.

Originally Posted by yossarian

There is no limit to the illogicalness you can create. The same thing happens with SR.

Yes there is. It's in your own statement. "you can create" is the limit itself.

Originally Posted by yossarian

In a certain way I think it says something true that is also false, something deeply meaningful that is intentionally simple-minded.

More accurately, it's not making a truth claim at all: it's neither true nor false. Perspectives do not have truth values: they simply are. Much like the Tao.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

What? How is logic thrown out the window? Logic works just as well in Subjective Reality as it does in an objective frame of mind. They have nothing to do with one another. Syllogisms maintain their soundness in any reality.

Because with subjective reality, logical derivation shows that reality can be both subjective and objective. This is a contradiction. If you accept this contradiction as fact rather than rejecting it as being a contradiction, you are throwing logic out the window and there is no point in using logic to reason about anything anymore because you can logically derive absolutely anything. So skip the intermediary step of making rational derivations and jump straight to conclusions. The "derivation" is a waste of time anyway because it's just a rationalization of previously chosen conclusions.

In a math proof, if you take a premise and then logically deduce that 1=0, we call this a contradiction and conclude that the premise is invalid. However, if you instead accept the premise as true, then you now can literally derive anything anywhere and the rules of logic totally break down and no longer matter whatsoever because they neither restrict nor empower you. If they don't matter, why bother speaking in logical terms? It then just becomes pure masturbation.

Under the "rules" of subjective reality you can derive whatever you want no matter how illogical. So why limit yourself to logical processes? If you enjoy it, ok, but calling void "truth" is disengenuious.

When physicists and mathematicians crank out a calculation and get a singularity it indicates a lack of understanding and a break down of understanding. When Newton got singularities when playing with the nature of motion, he realised this was a deficient model and so invented Calculus to empower himself. He invented an empowering model that got results but also gave form to content through empowering restrictions.

If subjective reality is a logical singularity that loses all form, is it actually empowering?

Or are we calling Some Thing "Subjective Reality" when it really should have another name like "StevePavlina Reality"?

Logic is a Thing, and unless one wants to totally abuse the meaning of language (by changing the definition of Logic) one must admit that subjective reality allows and therefore encourages infinite recursion in a formless way. It's the snake eating it's own tail.

I for one believe that reality is objective, and infinitely recursive, but in a way that has form, which validates the use of logic. Is this a subjective belief? Well, yes. But technically so is absolutely everything everywhere and everytime. The reason we invent objective models from subjective models is because form is empowering. Subjective therefore is itself a word that means nothing except when it's used in conjunction with objective.

"Everyone has their own objective view of reality, because reality is subjective" is just another way of saying people use objective reality. Meanwhile saying "Everyone has their own subjective view of reality because reality is subjective" is this kind of formless infinite recursion that stops having any meaning. You can't say subjective and have meaning unless at some point down in the chain you reach an objective model. Without fail, the objective model is where people perch themselves. If you continually perch on an objective model, is reality truly subjective?

Differing interpretations does not indicate subjectivity of truth. It's just different interpretations. In a logical world you could literally catalog the various interpretations and then classify them for their pros and cons, and using this method find the most ideal interpretation for each situation. Is this actually subjective, or is it just another level of objectivity that I've perched on?

Every scenario that I've read or imagined about SR ends up back at objectivity being the dominant model, and the reason is for its utility. Utility is the universal indicator of truth.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Because with subjective reality, logical derivation shows that reality can be both subjective and objective. This is a contradiction.

Um, no. It isn't. It's unquestioned fact in just about every word I've ever read. Here's your faulty logic:

"If reality is objective, then it is not subjective."
or
"If reality is subjective, then it is not objective."

Both of these conditional statements are false. Ergo, the "logical derivation" above is not a contradiction. QED. Logical fallacy is called "false dichotomy".

Originally Posted by yossarian

you can logically derive absolutely anything.

You can always derive absolutely everything. A classic example of a perfectly logical proof: "It always rains on Thursdays. Tomorrow is Thursday. Therefore, it will rain tomorrow."

Perfectly logical. Perfectly rational. The detail about logic that everyone seems to forget is that, if you input a falsehood, you output gibberish. Logic is an apparatus by which one can determine truth from truth.

Originally Posted by yossarian

It then just becomes pure masturbation.

As an aside, what do you have against masturbation?

Originally Posted by yossarian

When physicists and mathematicians crank out a calculation and get a singularity it indicates a lack of understanding and a break down of understanding.

Um, what? What doesn't indicate a lack of understanding? All knowledge is a gateway towards more knowledge: all understanding increases one's awareness of how much one doesn't understand. This detail isn't terribly special.

For every lesson you learn, there is a subsequent lesson about your own ignorance. Why do you think people shy away from learning? Because it's a constant, persistent, unrelenting reminder that you don't actually know as much as you thought you did.

Originally Posted by yossarian

Or are we calling Some Thing "Subjective Reality" when it really should have another name like "StevePavlina Reality"?

If you read Steve's original piece, you'll note that he thinks "Subjective Reality" is a misnomer, too. I strongly recommend it. It's called Q&A or something. The term "God-consciousness" is much better, but still flawed. I need to sleep, because I can't think of a better one at this moment.

Originally Posted by yossarian

Logic is a Thing

Logic is a process, just like science. (See: this thread for details.) I cannot hold it in my hand and throw it at you. I cannot touch it or point at it. Logic is something I do, it is not something that exists.

Well, unless you want to "totally abuse the meaning of language (by changing the definition of Logic)". I did ask you for yours, implicitly.

Originally Posted by yossarian

Utility is the universal indicator of truth.

No, it isn't. Utility is utility. Truth is truth. Utility does not indicate truth; it indicates utility. Predictability does not indicate truth; it indicates predictability. Truth is something assigned to the statement, "It is predictable" or "It is useful." F=ma has utility, because it is predictable and reliable, but it is not necessarily true. 1=1 is true, by definition, as a given, because we arbitrarily say it is. 1=0 is false, by definition, as a given, because we arbitrarily say it is. We assign meanings to the terms such that the logical conclusion is that it is false. We define "one" to be not-"zero". Or more-than-"zero".

Originally Posted by yossarian

Every scenario that I've read or imagined about SR ends up back at objectivity being the dominant model, and the reason is for its utility.

From what I can see, you're not talking about the same subjective reality that Steve does. In my reply to you, I have intentionally used the word "subjective" in the same sense you have. I'll explain how Steve means it now, to put words in his mouth. (Because I'm too lazy to run searches and find his article.)

Remember that Self == Universe. That's premise 1. Term "subjective" refers to a perspective based on a self. That's premise 2. Conclusion 1: Term "subjective" refers to a perspective based on universe.

The idea of subjective reality works best when your consciousness embraces the entirety of objective reality. There are other questions at that point, but that's for your personal theologian to decipher when his bedtime wasn't six hours ago for reasons best unfathomed.