Objective reality

[Brian]

 

I look wiggley when I look at my reflection in flowing water.

Like a fun house mirror, only smoother.

[Rara]

Objective reality is what's happening, ie its raining, the crops aren't growing, the wife has the Plague. Subjective reality is our thoughts and beliefs about it, ie God is displeased with me.

This. Thread closed lol

[Karl]

No transformation? Your own words reveal something completely contrary to that statement.

The idea of "steps" or "levels" is a manufactured one for the purpose of intellectualizing -- the transformation isn't along a continuum but the lumpiness is not discrete and predictable.

Contemplating changing perspectives, though, gives some insight into the on-going process of transformation.

 

No transformation, it certainly seems like there is a path, like going somewhere, passing things along the way and then, it isn't. It must be remembered that free will and choice has determinism based on emotional subjectivity, if that wasn't so, then we wouldn't act at all. It's like one of those dual fuel cars. Flip a switch and..the engine keeps on running just the same. Seamless. The thing is we have learned to stay mostly in that subjective realm for viewing reality-this is where we are as young children and into puberty. We are driven emotionally and then make decisions with more emotional subjectivity than objectivity.

 

Nothing changes just goes from more subjective to more objective, everything else stays the same, I still don't like jellied eels and still love Pizza. 'Gather wood carry water'. End of suffering.

[Nikolai1]

If you've been brought up in a dreamy, unrational environment then logic, reason and science can come as revelation.

 

In this day and age, it more often happens the other way round, at least to the highly educated. The scientific view is what we absorb at university, and it takes stunning insight and immense hard work to see how flaky the world of science is. With an enormous leap, We may look at the Tarot and the crystal headings with a newfound respect.

 

The next step is he hardest. The next step you take alone. Because nearly everyone is still either for science or for crystals and you are for neither, and both.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

If you've been brought up in a dreamy, unrational environment then logic, reason and science can come as revelation.

In this day and age, it more often happens the other way round, at least to the highly educated. The scientific view is what we absorb at university, and it takes stunning insight and immense hard work to see how flaky the world of science is. With an enormous leap, We may look at the Tarot and the crystal headings with a newfound respect.

The next step is he hardest. The next step you take alone. Because nearly everyone is still either for science or for crystals and you are for neither, and both.

 

I'm not 'for' anything but objective reality. I could not care less if the universe is composed of candy floss or hair cream. If someone believes that Tarot cards or crystal healing are valid in their life context that's fine with me. I told you I was like litmus. If you tell me that I must accept Tarot cards as being a true predictor of fortune than probability, or that a broken arm is better healed with a crystal than a plaster cast then I'm going to laugh.

 

[Kubba]

What if there is as much realities as there is people? each person has differently proggressed consciousness, each person has a bit differently developed senses, different seeing, different smelling ability.

Funny part is that there is no dimensions.

When you look with your eyes and you pay enought attention you would notice also that objects in your field of viev are slighty changing their shapes cause your eye is round, so objects are slightl deformed.

There is this soup, and then you can make use of it by counting, biting, cutting, checking, investigating. All is fun

[Karl]

What if there is as much realities as there is people? each person has differently proggressed consciousness, each person has a bit differently developed senses, different seeing, different smelling ability.

Funny part is that there is no dimensions.

When you look with your eyes and you pay enought attention you would notice also that objects in your field of viev are slighty changing their shapes cause your eye is round, so objects are slightl deformed.

There is this soup, and then you can make use of it by counting, biting, cutting, checking, investigating. All is fun

 

Not 'different realities' but different perceptual differences for certain. Colour blind people don't see the same colours as those who are not colourblind, there are also cross perceptions where some see colours in music for instance. Reality remains.

 

Not sure what you mean by 'no dimensions' ? Do you mean absolute dimensions ? A tree for instance is growing and so into shape and dimensions change. Heat applied to an object will reduce its weight and increase its volume. This doesn't indicate different realities, these things are part of that reality, we can specify these things. If we at sea level then water boils at 100 then we go up a mountain and the water boils at a lower temperature so we specify those things in a definition if necessary. Same with relativity, we just state the law if necessary.

[Nikolai1]

Karl - does reality behave according to its own principles? Or can the human creatively change the principles. For example could the human mind create rainfall as needed, say in the form of a dance? Or must human creativity adapt itself to the restraints of reality and wait passively for the rain?

[Karl]

Karl - does reality behave according to its own principles? Or can the human creatively change the principles. For example could the human mind create rainfall as needed, say in the form of a dance? Or must human creativity adapt itself to the restraints of reality and wait passively for the rain?

 

We engage with reality, we are reality. There are physical laws of reality. We can seed clouds to cause rain. I know of no human dance that has a direct causal connection with rain, although there is always large scale causal effect-pretty chaotic super complex model.

[Marblehead]

This. Thread closed lol

Naw.  It's always too early to close a thread.

[Nikolai1]

But you don't think people can dance and create rain through the power of intention / law of attraction or whatever? So, in the past, when people did rain dances they were under an illusion of causation? Perhaps the most seemingly successful dancers were simply good at sensing coming rain?

[Marblehead]

 Perhaps the most seemingly successful dancers were simply good at sensing coming rain?

You are likely on to something here.

[Brian]

No transformation, it certainly seems like there is a path, like going somewhere, passing things along the way and then, it isn't. It must be remembered that free will and choice has determinism based on emotional subjectivity, if that wasn't so, then we wouldn't act at all. It's like one of those dual fuel cars. Flip a switch and..the engine keeps on running just the same. Seamless. The thing is we have learned to stay mostly in that subjective realm for viewing reality-this is where we are as young children and into puberty. We are driven emotionally and then make decisions with more emotional subjectivity than objectivity. Nothing changes just goes from more subjective to more objective, everything else stays the same, I still don't like jellied eels and still love Pizza. 'Gather wood carry water'. End of suffering.

You don't think there is a transformation taking place unbeknownst to you when you "flip a switch" on the dual fuel car you describe? The switch itself is inconsequential? I suspect the engineers and technicians would be pleased to learn you think that's the case but would also burst into laughter when you left the room.

 

I would suggest you are equally unaware of or in denial about your own personal transformation. The question you ought to ask yourself is, "Why?"

 

Not that I think you will, mind you. You appear, in my estimation, to have a case of logic addiction and, like any other addiction, the addict must first acknowledge the problem and then resolve to do something about it.

 

Wonder if there's a 12-step program for it???

 

[Apech]

You are likely on to something here.

 Gene Kelly for instance.

[Seth Ananda]

Haha this old chestnut, I remember quite a debate here about it a while ago.

My stance is that there is no objective reality for us, or anything else. Or that there may be and probably is one, but not one we will ever see, touch, know anything about, or ever be able to speak about with any level of certainty.

 

I think that the term 'objectivity' is a clumsy and philosophically imprecise attempt at describing the stuff that we all share and interact with, which does not change, unlike all the subjective stuff.

I side with the phenomenologists who prefer to call the shared universe, and all the laws about it that we have discovered and used so well, 'Inter-subjective'.

The 'Inter' part of the word is to describe the shared nature of experience.  
The 'Subjective' part is to help us remain aware that there is never any form of Objectivity anywhere.
 

 

 

I say this because everything is subject to the tools used to measure or observe or even think about it with.

 

Touch is subject to the nervous system that feels it.
Sight is subject to the eye or lens structure that views it, the amount of color it is capable of receiving.

A creature that has an eye that works more like a fish-eye camera lens sees the 'shape' of things in totally different terms to us, yet its experience of the world is just as real and unquestioned to it, as ours is to us.
 

Mathematical formulas are subject to the number systems that are used, and number problems that may exist are sometimes absent in 'base 12' or other types of number systems. 

Scientific evaluations are subject to the types of measuring equipment, that they use. Back in the day this gave us the particle wave problem. One form of experiment showed particles, and another different one showed waves.

Which one was it? Oh no!

 

 

Its seems that people who reject this idea in kneejerk reaction style are deeply fearful rationalists, and frankly I can't blame them.  
They seem terrified that if they admitted that their senses and brains are only one kind of measurement tool, then the world will just descend into irrational chaos. People will bump their heads trying to walk through walls, someone who channels a new cosmic my little pony will be given just as much credibility as the latest scientific advancement.

 

In a world of fluff and stupidity these rationalists have armored themselves with "Serious Facts Dangnamit!"  

To hold themselves above the great unwashed, knowing their superior nature as knowers of TRUTH!  

On the other hand much has been written on the psychologically damaging effects of certainty, and the negative repercussions it has within the brain and within the entire worldview or outlook.

This is why the Idea of 'intersubjective' is so important. It allows us to continue to discover and learn actual science, laws, and can accept them as real enough {or shared enough} to be worth investing in, but not so real that it can never become improved, refined or even outdated.

Look at how many Scientists suffer from the rigid thinking that comes from believing in totally true objectivity.

A scientist makes an advancement which is 'true' today, but years later the original theory is challenged or updated and the Scientist cracks the shits. "It is True Goddamnit!"    And he fights tooth and nail against the new theory.

Imagine how much further we would be along scientifically, if we were able to accept good conclusions, based on the best we currently have, as true enough, and not need to to make it Absolute Truth.


Thats the problem with believing in Objectivity. If there is an 'Objective' world then there is a really real Absolute Truth out there. From what I can tell, science took this idea from the church. 

Once the church said God was the really real Absolute Truth. 

Then the Scientists said, no, actually its not God, its... these scientific principles!  They are the really real Absolute Truth!!!

Objectivity and the corresponding really real Absolute Truth are viruses in the mind.  They close people off to possibilities {even sane and very well researched ones} and make tyrants rather than explorers.

When you 'Know' Absolute Truth, because you 'are' objective, curiosity and exploration end, and they are essential to good science. 

[thelerner]

I collect wheaties, pre 1959 cents, a few weeks ago I got a 1936 penny for change.  I thought about it for a few days and considered an omen, that I should take some profits in the market, walk a way a bit.  So I did.  Its worked out okay.

 

Thing is, on the face of it, its illogical to see omens at all.  There's no way getting a penny of a certain date should mean anything at all.  Yet 1936 was deep into the depression.   Getting old coins is increasing rare (recently got a silver quarter as change).  Two rarities combine, so..?  practically everything that happens is unlikely, at least in combination.

 

What do I think?  I'm uncertain, but one way to think is that I wanted to leave the market and that getting the coin gives me a reason to.   Thus no omen, but a permission to do something that was percolating in the back of my mind. 

 

I haven't made up my mind about the nature of reality.  I hope its not so mechanically tic toc, yet that tends to be my default.  Still even if it was there are layers to the mind, subtleties grasped that the conscious mind misses.  Tapping into that is its own kind of power.  

Edited July 30, 2015 by thelerner

[Nikolai1]

For the subjectivist, even the mechanical tic toc of reality is a product of our minds. The regularity we witness is a testament to the firmness of our beliefs.

 

The question is: is the creative potential within us, or is the creative potential outside us?

 

Scientific rationalists believe that the creative potential is outside of us. It was in the nature of the universe to big bang into existence. God believers also think the potential is outside us, but intelligent and purposive and not blind. But, in a de facto sense, both recognise the creative potential within the individual - it is the basis of moral responsibility.

 

Subjectivists tend to be non-dualists. They see their own will as identical with th will that shapes the cosmos. God is something they partake of, something they themselves are. The universe arises from within them, and it's iron laws can change on a whim.

 

Spiritual develepment for the dualist brings increased evidence of God's benign intervention in their affairs; or the increase in power and therefore will that comes through understanding the laws of nature (yes, science is spiritual practice !)

 

For the non-dual subjectivist, synchroncities start to happen. What they wish for arrives uncannily. They develop the power to manifest stuff in the objective world.

 

Can we not see the basic similarity here. Same experiences described with different words?

Edited July 30, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

But you don't think people can dance and create rain through the power of intention / law of attraction or whatever? So, in the past, when people did rain dances they were under an illusion of causation? Perhaps the most seemingly successful dancers were simply good at sensing coming rain?

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

We danced, it rained, therefore the dancing caused the rain. Just poor logic. However if dancing keeps the spirits up through a bad patch-then dance.

 

There is no law of attraction, but there is human action. If we see a bike in a shop window and want it (emotional need to act ) then we find a way to get the money to buy it-we are always on the lookout for opportunity. This is where subjective and objective get confused. If it's seemingly possible to want something and then have something like the bike, then-our poor logic goes-why can't we find some form of action which will give us rain. What would have been better is to build a reservoir and irrigation system, dig wells etc, but in lieu of doing something practical let's dance.

[Nikolai1]

Karl - as a writer you must be aware of your creativity. You are producing things the universe has not seen before. Is there such a thing as creativity ? Or is creativity just the expression of a regular law that we do not understand yet?

[Karl]

You don't think there is a transformation taking place unbeknownst to you when you "flip a switch" on the dual fuel car you describe? The switch itself is inconsequential? I suspect the engineers and technicians would be pleased to learn you think that's the case but would also burst into laughter when you left the room.I would suggest you are equally unaware of or in denial about your own personal transformation. The question you ought to ask yourself is, "Why?"Not that I think you will, mind you. You appear, in my estimation, to have a case of logic addiction and, like any other addiction, the addict must first acknowledge the problem and then resolve to do something about it.Wonder if there's a 12-step program for it???

What is the transition from dispirited to a positive outlook. Are you transforming ? We metaphorically flip a switch, but nothing really occurs, some chemicals, neurons connect perhaps. Subjective to objective is like that. It's a conscious choice.

 

I have a reality addiction. I have made that clear. Logic is the naturally occurring human tool to ensure that real is real. Our reasoning powers can grow rapidly-so can our muscles in the presence of correct exercise, food and hormones. There really isn't any mystery to it-I know you are convinced there must be some great mysterious thing, but really, the universe, and our consciousness of it surpasses any subjective reality completely.

 

You don't see reality as I do, only because you refuse to accept it and that's why you won't take the reality message. You have no idea how to take it, even if you wanted it. Instead you want a subjective thing that you can never have because it isn't real. Understand that the real is real only. As the Guru says 'tell snake from rope'. That message is entirely clear. Knowing subjective from objective is freedom.

 

Before enlightenment chop sticks carry water, after enlightenment chop sticks carry water. Logically if we eliminate the commons then we get -nil. There is no enlightenment, or there is no reality. There is reality and therefore there is no enlightenment QED. It's a simple logical:

 

Either enlightenment or reality

Reality

Therefore not enlightenment.

 

If you know how to look it becomes obvious, but if you don't, then every puzzle has the need for a subjective solution. The 'enlightenment' is clearly and unequivocally a subjective notion. Sticks and water are objective, everyday realities. Therefore choose sticks and water over the subjective. Choose reality first, make it your goal to always be with it-as Ramana advised always be situated in self. That's what mindfulness really is, not some fuzzy trance, or staring at objects like a demented aquarium owner.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

Karl - maybe your problem is that you can't tell the difference between reality and explanations of reality. You think that science and logic are keys to reality itself, when they quite obviously aren't. You are addicted to reality yet themoment you talk about reality you miss it, and yet you think logic escapes this?

[Karl]

Haha this old chestnut, I remember quite a debate here about it a while ago.

My stance is that there is no objective reality for us, or anything else. Or that there may be and probably is one, but not one we will ever see, touch, know anything about, or ever be able to speak about with any level of certainty.

 

I think that the term 'objectivity' is a clumsy and philosophically imprecise attempt at describing the stuff that we all share and interact with, which does not change, unlike all the subjective stuff.

I side with the phenomenologists who prefer to call the shared universe, and all the laws about it that we have discovered and used so well, 'Inter-subjective'.

The 'Inter' part of the word is to describe the shared nature of experience.  

The 'Subjective' part is to help us remain aware that there is never any form of Objectivity anywhere.

 

 

 

I say this because everything is subject to the tools used to measure or observe or even think about it with.

 

Touch is subject to the nervous system that feels it.

Sight is subject to the eye or lens structure that views it, the amount of color it is capable of receiving.

A creature that has an eye that works more like a fish-eye camera lens sees the 'shape' of things in totally different terms to us, yet its experience of the world is just as real and unquestioned to it, as ours is to us.

 

Mathematical formulas are subject to the number systems that are used, and number problems that may exist are sometimes absent in 'base 12' or other types of number systems. 

Scientific evaluations are subject to the types of measuring equipment, that they use. Back in the day this gave us the particle wave problem. One form of experiment showed particles, and another different one showed waves.

Which one was it? Oh no!

 

 

Its seems that people who reject this idea in kneejerk reaction style are deeply fearful rationalists, and frankly I can't blame them.  

They seem terrified that if they admitted that their senses and brains are only one kind of measurement tool, then the world will just descend into irrational chaos. People will bump their heads trying to walk through walls, someone who channels a new cosmic my little pony will be given just as much credibility as the latest scientific advancement.

 

In a world of fluff and stupidity these rationalists have armored themselves with "Serious Facts Dangnamit!"  

To hold themselves above the great unwashed, knowing their superior nature as knowers of TRUTH!  

On the other hand much has been written on the psychologically damaging effects of certainty, and the negative repercussions it has within the brain and within the entire worldview or outlook.

This is why the Idea of 'intersubjective' is so important. It allows us to continue to discover and learn actual science, laws, and can accept them as real enough {or shared enough} to be worth investing in, but not so real that it can never become improved, refined or even outdated.

Look at how many Scientists suffer from the rigid thinking that comes from believing in totally true objectivity.

A scientist makes an advancement which is 'true' today, but years later the original theory is challenged or updated and the Scientist cracks the shits. "It is True Goddamnit!"    And he fights tooth and nail against the new theory.

Imagine how much further we would be along scientifically, if we were able to accept good conclusions, based on the best we currently have, as true enough, and not need to to make it Absolute Truth.

Thats the problem with believing in Objectivity. If there is an 'Objective' world then there is a really real Absolute Truth out there. From what I can tell, science took this idea from the church. 

Once the church said God was the really real Absolute Truth. 

Then the Scientists said, no, actually its not God, its... these scientific principles!  They are the really real Absolute Truth!!!

Objectivity and the corresponding really real Absolute Truth are viruses in the mind.  They close people off to possibilities {even sane and very well researched ones} and make tyrants rather than explorers.

When you 'Know' Absolute Truth, because you 'are' objective, curiosity and exploration end, and they are essential to good science. 

 

It is an absolute objective reality that you believe what you have just written is it not ?

If it isn't then what can you believe? You are lost in a subjective world and you are not free. Occasionally to see this is both saddening and maddening. It's like watching an alcoholic drink their way to oblivion.

[Nikolai1]

Karl - you will speak words of wisdom half the time.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

Karl - maybe your problem is that you can't tell the difference between reality and explanations of reality. You think that science and logic are keys to reality itself, when they quite obviously aren't. You are addicted to reality yet themoment you talk about reality you miss it, and yet you think logic escapes this?

 

You are thinking subjectively, thinking in terms of subjective problems. It is you that adds 'explanations' to reality. I see only reality. I am only self there is no other that thinks 'explanations'. Self-reality.

 

You are thinking of logic as 'seperate'. How many texts have told you this separation is an illusion. 'You are not the body' tells you that. Because you think subjectively it is impossible for you to understand the meaning. Are you the arm ? No are you the head? No are you the logic ? No. All things equal. No separation. Logic is part of the whole, but you cannot see it. It is reality in and of itself inseparable. Subjective is the objective reality of the creative/emotive. Trust one over the other. You choose which ? I cannot choose for you, but you are free to do so this very second, but your mind is clouded by doubts. Do what is required to clear the mind. Do whatever it takes.

[Karl]

Karl - you will speak words of wisdom half the time.

 

Test for yourself. I cannot show you. It is you that reads only half the words. I'm minded only because you ask, otherwise I'm doing what needs to be done.