The Myth of Objective Reality

[headband 707]

Exactly, so when I eat my frosty cornflakes, with white water, I should use a straw? Maybe a knife?

The cornflakes are there, or is that just more nerve impulses?

Should I try eat the spoon!

Confused, and getting hungry!!

Shokdee

What you really mean to say is your going to eat you GMO product lol.. headband 707

 

[BudToaster]

And if you already voted "subjective", then hit your hand with a hammer and try not to say "ouch!". BTW, good luck.

and yet, two people can experience the same reality and have different levels of pain/sorrow/suffering.

for example, my gf and i live together. she wakes up and is depressed and angry. i wake up and i am living another day of bliss.

which one of us is deluded? i like to think i am seeing more of the possiblities, she thinks i am missing the catastrophy waiting to pounce.

now, this is kind of a gross example, but i see the same thing happening across all aspects of what i experience, and see others experiencing. pretty subjective, eh?

 

[shokdee]

We have to be careful of semantics.

The word "reality" means different things to different people.

So we need to define exactly what "reality" is first.

When we define it, that "sets up" limits, back to set theory...

It's a trap of word-brain, the right hand-left hemisphere circuit.

What we are left with is raw emotions, the pure human, joy/sorrow/love/hate.

And again, these emotions can not be described.

It's an Escher-style trap the word game!

What we can say is "I am responsible for my experience of reality".

Take it from there...

Shokdee

 

[shokdee]

So a word-game.
Ready!
Steady!
Go!

The game is the "is" of identification, hee hee

Read into General Sematics and Count Alfred Korzybski's brutal attack on the Aristotelian "is" of identification.

The map is not the territory.

Shokdee

 

[southflorida]

We have to be careful of semantics.

The word "reality" means different things to different people.

So we need to define exactly what "reality" is first.

When we define it, that "sets up" limits, back to set theory...

It's a trap of word-brain, the right hand-left hemisphere circuit.

true...no matter how hard we try, all we can ever do is point at the truth, at the true nature of reality.

reality is what "IS" as-itself.

...not what it means "for-me."

...not what it means "for-itself."

But, what something "is" as-itself, "absolutely" - and without any add-ons, or any secondary processes being piled on top of what IS.

But, in the end, we will fundamentally FAIL, because the truth is that we don't know what something is.

All we have are concepts, and they are only useful as a way to refer to what something is, and this obviously is not what something is, but only a representation of what something is.

What we are left with is raw emotions, the pure human, joy/sorrow/love/hate.

And again, these emotions can not be described.

It's an Escher-style trap the word game!

these emotions you described are not really raw, they are all conceptual in nature, meaning that they are created in the mind, and they have a conceptual structure.

without thinking first, none of these would spring up in our interpretations, one has to relate a circumstance in relation to one's "self" to actually experience any of these emotions.

What we can say is "I am responsible for my experience of reality".

Take it from there...

true, we do create our experience, or to be more correct our Consciousness creates our experience, and then our self-minds interprets it and provides it with a meaning.

This is all based on beliefs and assumptions made and created in the past.

We actually create our secondary reality through making distinctions in our awareness.

Absolutely everything that exists is a distinction.

 

[southflorida]

So a word-game.
Ready!
Steady!
Go!

The game is the "is" of identification, hee hee

Read into General Sematics and Count Alfred Korzybski's brutal attack on the Aristotelian "is" of identification.

The map is not the territory.


View Image
Shokdee

Interesting dude this Alfred. Just read about him in Wikipedia.

First time I ever heard of him, but he is basically pointing at the fact that our perceptions are secondary, and we don't perceive the primary reality.

 

[shokdee]

// emotions ... are not really raw, they are all conceptual in nature, meaning that they are created in the mind, and they have a conceptual structure. ... without thinking first, none of these would spring up in our interpretations, one has to relate a circumstance in relation to one's "self" to actually experience any of these emotions. //

I suspect that you don't understand basic biology and the functions of the Central and Peripheral Nervous Systems.

Can I be pedantic again?

The CNS contains the brain and spinal cord.

The PNS consists mainly of nerves and includes motor neurons, mediating voluntary movement, the autonomic nervous system, (ANS) or visceral nervous system or involuntary nervous system, comprising the sympathetic nervous system and the parasympathetic nervous system and regulating involuntary functions, and the enteric nervous system, a semi-independent part of the nervous system whose function is to control the gastrointestinal system. (wiki)

I just voted for reality is objective!

 

[shokdee]

// true, we do create our experience, or to be more correct our Consciousness creates our experience, and then our self-minds interprets it and provides it with a meaning. ... This is all based on beliefs and assumptions made and created in the past.//

// We actually create our secondary reality through making distinctions in our awareness. ... Absolutely everything that exists is a distinction. //

In what way is "Consciousness" different to "self-mind" and "awareness"?
How does "self-mind" generate and/or extract "meaning"?
Is this not the job of "Consciousness" or "awareness"?

What is the primary reality?

The role of distinction is to produce information as only a difference that makes a difference is worth noting. A computer is a "difference engine".

Difference by itself can not generate reality, or define reality.

Shokdee: I smoke, therefore I am ... ... smoked

 

[southflorida]

// emotions ... are not really raw, they are all conceptual in nature, meaning that they are created in the mind, and they have a conceptual structure. ... without thinking first, none of these would spring up in our interpretations, one has to relate a circumstance in relation to one's "self" to actually experience any of these emotions. //

I suspect that you don't understand basic biology and the functions of the Central and Peripheral Nervous Systems.

Can I be pedantic again?

The CNS contains the brain and spinal cord.

The PNS consists mainly of nerves and includes motor neurons, mediating voluntary movement, the autonomic nervous system, (ANS) or visceral nervous system or involuntary nervous system, comprising the sympathetic nervous system and the parasympathetic nervous system and regulating involuntary functions, and the enteric nervous system, a semi-independent part of the nervous system whose function is to control the gastrointestinal system. (wiki)

An emotion is conceptual in structure, meaning that in order to feel an emotion like fear, anger, or desire, which are the three primary emotions we experience, one has to interpret the incoming data conceptually. After this is done the self-mind sends the emotional charge that we identify as fear, anger, or desire.

Here is a thread I wrote a while back explaining the structures of these three emotions. Since I'm very lazy, I definitely don't want to retype all this info here, or quote it either.

Structures of Fear, Anger, and Desire!

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=250322

I just voted for reality is objective!

actually the primary reality is objective, we simply can't perceive it since our perceptions are indirect processes.

but we can be directly conscious of the primary reality, since we're it

 

[shokdee]

actually the primary reality is objective .... we can be directly conscious of the primary reality, since we're it

 

[shokdee]

// Here is a thread I wrote a while back explaining the structures of these three emotions. Since I'm very lazy, I definitely don't want to retype all this info here, or quote it either. //

I had a look at that thread, barely managed to read the first page. Gave up by page two.

Generally, I feel you are a kindhearted, wonderful and insightful person with many pieces to the puzzle. You are motivated to complete the puzzle so good luck!

Shokdee

And now southflorida, my friend, you're it!

 

[headband 707]

http://www.scoop.it/t/fluoride-and-pineal-gland


Perhaps your perceptions are altered !! lol.. headband 707

 

[southflorida]

Independent of any self exists a Consciousness that is in no way bound to perception, mind, or survival. This is the stuff known only through direct realization or enlightenment, becoming conscious of the absolute or true nature of reality. Realizing that one’s self—no matter what is identified as that self—is this very Consciousness reveals that the self, and therefore survival, is already nonexistent and unnecessary.

This transcends survival since there is no self to survive. There is only Being.

Self-survival is not wrong. It is not right. It just is. So in this way, even self-survival is Being.

At the same time, our experience within the context of self-survival is so dominated by right and wrong that we’re unable to recognize this principle for-itself and as-itself.

Although the self principle is necessary for a self to survive, when we consider that self is whatever is interpreted as self, then we also see that self can be almost anything.

Self is a distinction within consciousness.

 

[southflorida]

Another interesting thing to ponder is

Why do we confuse accomplishing survival—which shows up as getting what we want—with being happy?

 

[TOKA]

Ive only read the first page andit got way to heavy for me lol its interesting to see how other people perceive reality but I find it hard to beleive that next time I go gym I could curl 500kg with one hand as the weight isnt really there and its subjective. Hypertrophy for me blows this reality is subjective thing out the water as u cant build muscle by just thinking your lifting 100kg when your really lifting 10kg.

 

[TOKA]

Perceiving Something For-Itself:



When we leave this thread, who cares? What’s going to occupy our energies and attention then?

My girls ass in yoga pants/leggings, thats my happiness right there! Lol

sorry but im one of them moods

peace

 

[shokdee]

EYE CANDY

// My girls ass in yoga pants/leggings, thats my happiness right there! Lol //

 

[HempKat]

Another interesting thing to ponder is

Why do we confuse accomplishing survival—which shows up as getting what we want—with being happy?

Well if survival is the driving force you suggest it is then why shouldn't we be happy upon accomplishing it? If it's as all encompassing as you've suggested then what reason would we have to not be happy when accomplishing it? It seems to me happiness would be a very understandable thing for survival (getting what we want) to be confused with.

Besides for someone to stand up and say "I'm so accomplished at survival" when they feel happiness would be kind of retarded.

 

[trichrider]

...even that would be a distinction made.

unconditional love. immutable, everlasting, indistinguishable.

 

[shokdee]

unconditional love. immutable, everlasting, indistinguishable.

* This post has been deleted *

Conditional love insists the strings be attached.

$hokdee

< snip snip >