Objective reality

[Brian]

To continue on from an earlier point, we "know" that centrifugal force isn't "real" but scientists and engineers continue to use it regularly. Illusions are real until understood to be not real, and then they often continue to be real in a different way.

[Silent Answers]

We are not one. There is no collective. Just as Mars has gravity and Jupiter have gravity, we affect each other's orbits, but we are not shared.

How do you *know* this? For starters, nobody understands gravity very well...it's just an infinite numbers game that helps to sweep surprises under the rug. The Sun touches down on all of us, encases us, interacts with planetary/biological magnetics. It is part of a group, physically connected to the galaxy, which is part of a cluster, connected in filaments through space to form a web-like structure. And that's just a drop in the ocean.

 

You can't mix solid claims like: all is self, nothing is connected, there is only objectivity...all the while using a subjective mind and an out of date view on astrophysics, as presented to you from the subjectivity of another's mind, to understand it.

 

By the way, this isn't personal..I'm just killing some time with you.

[Brian]

As to simultaneity...

 

If the speed of light in empty space is a constant and if inertial coordinate systems are equivalent then simultaneity is relativistic and depends on the observer's frame of reference.

 

(Note that this is true within a stated set of assumptions.)

[Brian]

<snip>

By the way, this isn't personal..I'm just killing some time with you.

^^^ Repeated for emphasis.

[Nikolai1]

Brian - could you explain something for me about mirrors?

 

If I hold a mirror at an angle very close to my eye I need to seriously strain my eyes in order to see the dust and blemishes on the surface.

 

If I relax my eyes, I can easily see the reflection of the forest through my window even though it is a hundred metres away.

 

Why is this? Is the reflected forest not as close to my eyes as the blemishes?

[Karl]

That which all thought arises within is shared.

 

As an experiment if you examine what your thoughts arise within can you find any edge, or beginning or end to that space? Now if everyone is in the same situation then is is possible that it is the same space?

 

 I understand that this is unlikely to be accepted by anyone without direct experience but it is possible to have the experience of recognising that the same consciousness which is looking out of your eyes is the same as that looking out of anothers. While freaky to the mind it is also the only form of true intimacy or what some call non-duality.

 

No. You misconstrue space, there is no defined space in thought. No dimension at all, so what would make you think it was shared ?

 

Again, no it is not possible to have the same consciousness. If you ever experience it let me know ;-)

[Brian]

Brian - could you explain something for me about mirrors?

 

If I hold a mirror at an angle very close to my eye I need to seriously strain my eyes in order to see the dust and blemishes on the surface.

 

If I relax my eyes, I can easily see the reflection of the forest through my window even though it is a hundred metres away.

 

Why is this? Is the reflected forest not as close to my eyes as the blemishes?

That is because your eye has trouble focusing on a very short distance. The "reflected forest" is just as far from the mirror as the "real forest" is; the "focal length" is the distance from your eye to the mirror plus the distance from the mirror to the forest.

 

When you look out a window, you can adjust your eyes and your awareness to focus on the glass, on objects outside the window or on the reflection of objects inside the room. Part of this is a physical/objective change in the geometry of the eye to change the point of focus and part of this is a perspective/subjective change in the point of interest.

[ralis]

Good luck in defining objective reality.   The odds are not in anyone's favor.  

[Karl]

How do you *know* this? For starters, nobody understands gravity very well...it's just an infinite numbers game that helps to sweep surprises under the rug. The Sun touches down on all of us, encases us, interacts with planetary/biological magnetics. It is part of a group, physically connected to the galaxy, which is part of a cluster, connected in filaments through space to form a web-like structure. And that's just a drop in the ocean.

You can't mix solid claims like: all is self, nothing is connected, there is only objectivity...all the while using a subjective mind and an out of date view on astrophysics, as presented to you from the subjectivity of another's mind, to understand it.

By the way, this isn't personal..I'm just killing some time with you.

 

You don't, that doesn't mean I don't. You are self not 'all' is self. Consciousness is not connected, we are not all one. Things exist apart from consciousness. If you want to define universal constants as truths then you must do that first. You must use experimental induction. You want to learn the nature of things then that is the tool. I don't need to know the nature of things, just as you probably don't need to know the contents of the 17th edition wiring regulations. I can extrapolate from first principles and its sufficient.

 

You don't have a 'subjective mind' luckily you were born with the faculty of reason. Subjectivity is fine where it rests. If you want to compare the flavours of beer, or the sound of an instrument then we can convey that between us in whatever fashion.

[Jetsun]

No. You misconstrue space, there is no defined space in thought. No dimension at all, so what would make you think it was shared ? Again, no it is not possible to have the same consciousness. If you ever experience it let me know ;-)

 

'I' have experienced shared consciousness, which is why I wrote what I did.

 

I was working one on one with someone in London who is 'awake' and spends a lot of her time in non-duality, and in one moment I looked into her eyes and instead of seeing her I saw the same consciousness as what was looking, I saw me in her. It was only a split second but basically changed everything. Then I spent the rest of the night freaking out because it basically meant that the underlying consciousness is shared, is 'one' and the ego denies 'oneness' because it means it isn't special and separate, it is death to ego separation consciousness. 

[Karl]

Good luck in defining objective reality.   The odds are not in anyone's favor.  

 

I prefer to point at things, but I'm kind of crude like that.

[Karl]

'I' have experienced shared consciousness, which is why I wrote what I did.

 

I was working one on one with someone in London who is 'awake' and spends a lot of her time in non-duality, and in one moment I looked into her eyes and instead of seeing her I saw the same consciousness as what was looking, I saw me in her. It was only a split second but basically changed everything. Then I spent the rest of the night freaking out because it basically meant that the underlying consciousness is shared, is 'one' and the ego denies 'oneness' because it means it isn't special and separate, it is death to ego separation consciousness.

I do not doubt that this is your belief. That is objective reality. If you saw yourself in her then what was looking at her ? You don't have two consciousnesses. You imagined it.

 

I would say that you can get a sort of emotional transference and this is very obvious in crowds. I don't know the mechanisms, pheromones, body language whatever. Anyway, when working with clients it was necessary to encourage deep empathy and sometimes we shared a common emotional bond. It's immensely strong. We did a few exercises during practitioner training, in which a group of us guys sat in a circle and fed the entire group positive commentary.....blew my socks off.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Karl

[Jetsun]

I do not doubt that this is your belief. That is objective reality. If you saw yourself in her then what was looking at her ? You don't have two consciousnesses. You imagined it.

 

I would say that you can get a sort of emotional transference and this is very obvious in crowds. I don't know the mechanisms, pheromones, body language whatever. Anyway, when working with clients it was necessary to encourage deep empathy and sometimes we shared a common emotional bond. It's immensely strong. We did a few exercises during practitioner training, in which a group of us guys sat in a circle and fed the entire group positive commentary.....blew my socks off.

 

No that's not it   

[Nikolai1]

Brian

 

That is because your eye has trouble focusing on a very short distance. The "reflected forest" is just as far from the mirror as the "real forest" is; the "focal length" is the distance from your eye to the mirror plus the distance from the mirror to the forest.

But you said that the image is re-emitted at the mirror? If it is re-emitted then why does my eye not strain to see the reflected forest?

 

I would say that when we see, we see from nowhere.  The distance between the eye and the mirror is an illusion.  The troubl focussing is due to our belief in our spatial location vis a vis the mirror.

 

This reconciles the difficulty you talked about earlier between the re-emission theory and the bouncing theory.

[Silent Answers]

'I' have experienced shared consciousness, which is why I wrote what I did.

 

I was working one on one with someone in London who is 'awake' and spends a lot of her time in non-duality, and in one moment I looked into her eyes and instead of seeing her I saw the same consciousness as what was looking, I saw me in her. It was only a split second but basically changed everything. Then I spent the rest of the night freaking out because it basically meant that the underlying consciousness is shared, is 'one' and the ego denies 'oneness' because it means it isn't special and separate, it is death to ego separation consciousness.

@Karl - I'll also confirm the exact same experience.

 

If you're able to feel that full connection, where the You completely steps down from the stage, it's an undeniable experience...Especially if you're in the presence of somebody favourable to this kind of connection.

 

It's not that there are 2 conscious minds..it's always just the one, devided within Its own infinite capacity.

[Karl]

No that's not it   

 

Well cool. I won't try and persuade you otherwise. If you think it's true, then it is true for you. Ive had all kinds of adventures in wonderland far too salacious for these pages. Good fun at the time.

[Nikolai1]

Silent answers & Jetsun,

@Karl - I'll also confirm the exact same experience. 

If you're able to feel that full connection, where the You completely steps down from the stage, it's an undeniable experience...Especially if you're in the presence of somebody favourable to this kind of connection. 

It's not that there are 2 conscious minds..it's always just the one, devided within Its own infinite capacity. 

But you both must realise that your experience is able to be explained either through duality or non-duality.

 

Non-duality = separate consciousnesses becoming one and revealing the illusion of separation.

 

Duality = A biochemical attraction so strong that it creates the illusion of unity.

 

You can't verify beyond this. Both work as descriptons.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

@Karl - I'll also confirm the exact same experience.

If you're able to feel that full connection, where the You completely steps down from the stage, it's an undeniable experience...Especially if you're in the presence of somebody favourable to this kind of connection.

It's not that there are 2 conscious minds..it's always just the one, devided within Its own infinite capacity.

 

I'm just going to get grief if I say you are mistaken. If that is how it seemed to you then let that stand.

[Karl]

Silent answers & Jetsun,

 

But you both must realise that your experience is able to be explained either through duality or non-duality.

 

Non-duality = separate consciousnesses becoming one and revealing the illusion of separation.

 

Duality = A biochemical attraction so strong that it creates the illusion of unity.

 

You can't verify beyond this. Both work as descriptons.

 

The separation is within you, but it is only the illusion of separation. It then gets confused with objective perceptual reality and that can then create the illusion of there being neither inside or outside. Things get muddled up. It's part of a natural growing phase, just as babies struggle to separate colours and shapes.

 

Unfortunately today's lifestyle and state education system has delayed/retarded this natural growth. It's like undeveloped sex organs. This is probably where all that stuff about the Chakras comes from. The state system is designed specifically to prevent the development of critical thinking beyond what is needed to function in a platoic social hierarchy.

 

It is your birthright but you have been carefully trained to ignore it and utilise emotional intelligence. In other words, people are easier to control by the use of fear and reward. It's easier to get them to obey commands, to support war, to buy goods pushed by emotional advertising. You are very weakened. They have pulled out our teeth and claws.

 

You won't want to believe that no doubt, but it's all in plain sight-just exactly where you won't ever look :-)

[Brian]

Brian

 

But you said that the image is re-emitted at the mirror? If it is re-emitted then why does my eye not strain to see the reflected forest?

 

I would say that when we see, we see from nowhere.  The distance between the eye and the mirror is an illusion.  The troubl focussing is due to our belief in our spatial location vis a vis the mirror.

 

This reconciles the difficulty you talked about earlier between the re-emission theory and the bouncing theory.

Classically speaking, it is a function of what is known as the Huygens-Fresnel principle.

 

In quantum electrodynamics, it is a result of Fermat's principle.

 

The principle of least time sometimes seems counterintuitive but that is often the case when examining that which seems intuitive.

 

As a starting point, remember that "the image of the forest" is not contained in a single photon. Just as the actual image formed by looking at the forest directly does not come from a single point in space, neither does the projected image formed when looking at its reflection.

[Jetsun]

Silent answers & Jetsun,

But you both must realise that your experience is able to be explained either through duality or non-duality.

 

Non-duality = separate consciousnesses becoming one and revealing the illusion of separation.

 

Duality = A biochemical attraction so strong that it creates the illusion of unity.

 

You can't verify beyond this. Both work as descriptons.

 

 I have many experiences of what a psychologist may call 'merging' with others or illusory unity and the experience of non-duality is of a completely different taste, so from experience you can tell the difference. They aren't the same thing.

 

With non-duality it is complete non intrusive intimacy, like coming home which feels healthy and liberating to the body, whereas merging is ultimately a neurosis based upon co-dependency, so is more like an intrusion or domination which feels sticky and ultimately unhealthy and imprisoning, even if in the short term you feel more secure. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Jetsun

[Jetsun]

Well cool. I won't try and persuade you otherwise. If you think it's true, then it is true for you. Ive had all kinds of adventures in wonderland far too salacious for these pages. Good fun at the time.

 

Thanks for your condescending evaluation

[Nikolai1]

Jetsun,

 

 I have many experiences of what a psychologist may call 'merging' with others or illusory unity and the experience of non-duality is of a completely different taste, so from experience you can tell the difference. They aren't the same thing.

I'm simply saying that a hardcore dualist would explain any merging in dualistic terms.  They would simply say that two bodies are capable of an intimacy way beyond neurotic co-dependency, but that it is still all down to two biological profiles.

[Silent Answers]

I'm just going to get grief if I say you are mistaken. If that is how it seemed to you then let that stand.

No grief I'm aware of how it sounds from your view point. Hey, I may well be proven wrong. Wouldn't be the first time I've had to rethink my opinion...although, it would take something incredible to warrant interest.

[Nikolai1]

Karl

 

The separation is within you, but it is only the illusion of separation. It then gets confused with objective perceptual reality and that can then create the illusion of there being neither inside or outside. Things get muddled up. It's part of a natural growing phase, just as babies struggle to separate colours and shapes. 

You know, if there is one thing I will say for you...you are at least a bit different.  Non-duality is so modish, that its rare to hear the logical counterpart.  But I still hope you don't take it too seriously.