Objectivity exist only subjectively

[abramelin]

I was running earlier today and I was thinking about the duality.

 

the thing that struck me was that every thought that I have about some objective reality

only exist subjectively in my own mind.

 

There is something weird happening when one start to contemplate these matters.

 

What are the implications if there is no Objective reality to speak of, there is only the subjective story of what is going on?

 

This is also something that Quantum mechanics seems to point to - the observer is a part of the the outcome!

This is also something that Hermeticism seems to point to - the all is mind

Buddhism?

Taoism?

 

And the biggest Q, have you experienced "total subjectivity"?

 

Peace /J

[CarsonZi]

Hi abramelin....

the thing that struck me was that every thought that I have about some objective reality

only exist subjectively in my own mind.

 

There is something weird happening when one start to contemplate these matters.

 

Christi on AYP wrote something this morning about awareness that fits in here and I thought I would share incase it resonated with you....here's a link to his post in case you want to read the whole thread: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6274#56259

 

His post says this:

 

Question posed:Christi, Can you really say awareness is an object? This is not just a nit-picky point, IMO. But fundamental.

 

Christi's answer:Yes... it becomes the point where object and subject merge into one. Language fails us (once again!). This is the transition from being merged with the witness, to the direct experience of Oneness... also called, abiding in the non-dual state. What is it like? Paradise on Earth... even as the Earth is dissolving all around us.

 

Love,

Carson

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

And the biggest Q, have you experienced "total subjectivity"?

 

Peace /J

 

The objectivity expressed in spiritual traditions is always expressed subjectively by beings who have transcended themselves, so they are free from subjective projections which arise from an inner sense of lack. This sense of lack is the cause of craving, which conditions perception within the scope of ideals. So, we then start projecting our ideals onto the universe around us and stop seeing with clarity and open objectivity. Even though objective vision is possible, it's still expressed through the subject that has self transcended.

 

To explain this is a box of nitty gritty. Namely the entire cannon of Buddhism is one example of how vast the nitty gritty can be in both philosophy and methodology of how to directly experience and transcend this seeming paradox of subject/object duality, while remaining a subject in the universe.

[abramelin]

Language fails us

 

I think this is the main point, how do you express something that is transcendent?

an the word EXPRESS is a key, how doesn't language dictate our reality?

 

Language and myth does dictate our reality...

 

WE need new myths - big bang isn't that sexy as a myth?

 

Love/ john

[abramelin]

The objectivity expressed in spiritual traditions is always expressed subjectively by beings who have transcended themselves, so they are free from subjective projections which arise from an inner sense of lack. This sense of lack is the cause of craving, which conditions perception within the scope of ideals. So, we then start projecting our ideals onto the universe around us and stop seeing with clarity and open objectivity. Even though objective vision is possible, it's still expressed through the subject that has self transcended.

 

To explain this is a box of nitty gritty. Namely the entire cannon of Buddhism is one example of how vast the nitty gritty can be in both philosophy and methodology of how to directly experience and transcend this seeming paradox of subject/object duality, while remaining a subject in the universe.

 

The trancendence of the paradox of subject/object can be a scary ride if you are not ready for it

I had a ayahuasca experience were i "found out" and it was no fun prospect at the time. This was a couple of years ago and I still think i have to integrate this experience into my life. What this experience told me at the time was: we are truly one and we are our own mirrors in the world we experience.

 

It was a quite "shattering" experience" at the time but it somehow confirmed for me that experience is harsh but it has so much capacity for love.

 

 

Peace/john

[Vajrahridaya]

The trancendence of the paradox of subject/object can be a scary ride if you are not ready for it

I had a ayahuasca experience were i "found out" and it was no fun prospect at the time. This was a couple of years ago and I still think i have to integrate this experience into my life. What this experience told me at the time was: we are truly one and we are our own mirrors in the world we experience.

 

It was a quite "shattering" experience" at the time but it somehow confirmed for me that experience is harsh but it has so much capacity for love.

Peace/john

 

Yes, which is why I recommend having the experience through spiritual practice without chemicals. I've done the chemical rides for sure and they can be beautiful and helpful to a degree. But, when our practice is helped by the grace of enlightened lineage, there is ease and a feeling of a knowing force behind you that helps with knowing what you need so that nothing is over taxing or overly shocking outside of the blissful shocking experiences that do in fact liberate and then integrate.

 

If the experience of transcendence is not coupled with bliss, it might just be a deterrent to further exploration?

 

Which is why I have not done I-ow-aska. LOL! I've done Peyote though in a traditional setting and it was nothing different from the after experience of an intense meditation session. Just an open clarity of body and vision. It probably wouldn't have been so crisp maybe, if I hadn't of experienced this through the practices of Buddhism.

 

But, then again... it is the Peruvian tradition to use these things as a spiritual practice. I just don't know how perfect of a method it is, and how many truly and fully enlightened beings this method has produced? Thus far, I am a bit questioning of it's "over-all" validity. I've only met pretty crazy Shamans, so again, the question of subjectivity arises. But, again... I'm also not fully realized.

[Birch]

I was just saying the other day that it's not fun (for me) to realize this kind of thing ;-)

 

The realisation lends itself to absurdity which can lead some people (I'm guessing) to dark realisations and some people to lightness. I'm not sure that either of those are spontaneous per se...nor would I wish them upon anyone.

 

I'd suggest that having a "backup plan" such as a compassionate tradition or some kind of practice is a pretty good safety net - which is why you would do well in choosing such a tradition or such a practice.

[de_paradise]

 

There is something weird happening when one start to contemplate these matters.

/J

 

Whats happening thats weird?

 

I'll tell you that most people look as this issue as a philisophical question, but I see this as a technique or way, or concentration so that transformative qiflow becomes greater.

 

So just yesterday, coincidentally, I was thinking of this: myself as the entire universe, but that also includes a human down on earth who has in his mind the thought of thinking himself as the entire universe. In this way, everything in the universe is mind, or in my mind. Now thyou cannot really focus on that all at once so that you can really see it and feel it, but it can flip from view to view (subjective person on earth, projected objective of self as universe) quickly, and thats good enough. That is a very powerful object or absorption.

 

I dont care about philosophy much, I would concentrate on pink Cadillacs if it raised the level of qi, but it just so happens that the above idea, when you live it, feel it, keep it, hold onto it in meditation DOES do something. It furthers my cultivation. The key is the absorption, thats the key.

Edited September 5, 2009 by de_paradise

[findley]

regarding the question of Objectivity, Nietzsche insisted that it was a faulty concept-- and that the closest thing to, was by adopting, (not just merely understanding,) myriad points-of-view.

 

This may perhaps be one explanation for his apparant contradictory nature