The belief in a world made of Matter

[Jeff]

So are they all equally real - or unreal - in your book?

Effectively, but I guess it depends on your definition of real/unreal. Sort of like they are all perceptions of realitive "depth". The deeper you go, the more you can perceive and then it becomes real for you. There is also a quantum like shift where one goes from "perceiving" to "being" along the way. But, in the end, it is all inherently "empty".

[Marblehead]

Reminded me that there is a difference between the objective and subjective.

[Apech]

Reminded me that there is a difference between the objective and subjective.

 

 

For me it's interesting to look at the origin of those words.  The 'ject' part means 'to throw' and ob-ject means 'throw out' - and includes the use in the sense of 'I object to someone' and want them thrown out of the club etc.  Sub means 'under' and so sub-ject means to be 'thrown under' - which can be taken to mean 'put under' as in 'subject to' - for instance in Britain one is a subject to the Queen - that is you fall under her domain (that's for you Marblehead to remind you how free you are ).

 

The 'ject' throw could be as in pro-ject - that is we project an objective world composed of those things we throw out from ourselves, and that which we subsume under what is 'ours' is subjective.  This implies an activity of consciousness - which fits because the two possible roots of the word con-sciousness are 'with knowing' or 'with cutting or division'.  Consciousness creates the object/subject division principally by interpreting sense data and mental processes and grouping them.

 

What we know about the objectively real world is actually our interpretation of sense data.  Photons impact on the retina and cause nerve impulses which are interpreted by the brain.  This does not mean there is no objective world but simply that all we know of it is based on our own - and thus subjective assessment.  Clearly if we had a very poor and inaccurate subjective assessment of the meaning of sense data we would not last very long.  In former times we would have been quickly eaten by predators for instance.  So there is an objective testing of our subjective processes which is based on whether they allow us to to effectively respond and thus keep ourselves and our friends alive.  This really in a Darwinian sense is how we know that what we know of the world around us is accurate.  That it allows us to survive in the first place and more than that to prosper creatively.

 

That which could be called 'real' is that which can be divided and put together without ceasing to be what it is.  So ultimately the 'real' is the indestructible - the eternal - or what cannot be captured through conceptualisation - i.e. the Dao.  In a way the Dao is the medium in which the subject/object and world building power of consciousness occurs.  By following the way we can come to know how things come to be, exist and cease to be.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, you went much deeper into those two word/concepts thn I ever feel a need for.

 

(Yes, I respect the freedoms I still have.)

 

I generally try to keep this pretty simple.

 

Look!  Tiger.  (Objective)

 

Oh! Bad tiger!  Run away. (Subjective)

 

I also equate objective with non-duality and subjective with duality.  That is.  There's a tree (objective) insteady of there's a crooked tree (subjective).

[Brian]

Yeah, you went much deeper into those two word/concepts thn I ever feel a need for.

 

(Yes, I respect the freedoms I still have.)

 

I generally try to keep this pretty simple.

 

Look! Tiger. (Objective)

 

Oh! Bad tiger! Run away. (Subjective)

 

I also equate objective with non-duality and subjective with duality. That is. There's a tree (objective) insteady of there's a crooked tree (subjective).

So you're saying you don't like adjectives?

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

Sometimes I don't even like myself.

[rene]

Yeah, you went much deeper into those two word/concepts thn I ever feel a need for.

 

(Yes, I respect the freedoms I still have.)

 

I generally try to keep this pretty simple.

 

Look! Tiger. (Objective)

 

Oh! Bad tiger! Run away. (Subjective)

 

I also equate objective with non-duality and subjective with duality. That is. There's a tree (objective) insteady of there's a crooked tree (subjective).

Friend of mine calls subjective 'second-level thoughts'.

 

Look, tiger! (What we see)

Bad tiger! (What we think about what we see)

 

Both useful, and necessary imo, to function.

[Brian]

Note that non-dualistic tigers need no adjectives.

[Apech]

Note that non-dualistic tigers need no adjectives.

 

 

They have dualistic stripes tho'.

[Apech]

Sometimes I don't even like myself.

 

Hey!  We like you and that's all that counts.

[3bob]

risky to become one with the tiger as in being eaten by him, thus dualism has its merits  

[rene]

risky to become one with the tiger as in being eaten by him, thus dualism has its merits

It does, yes, along with non-dualism. (-:

 

...

He who knows how to live can walk abroad

Without fear of rhinoceros or tiger.

He will not be wounded in battle.

For in him rhinoceroses can find no place to thrust their horn,

Tigers no place to use their claws,

And weapons no place to pierce.

Why is this so?

Because he has no place for death to enter.

~TheLaozi,Ch50,F/E