reality as a Rorschach ink-blot

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by krossfyter

 

Dear krossfyter,

how do you objectify that there is a higher source beyond our individual experience of reality?

Great question. Jeez I wish I had a perfect answer; but, I don't. I have two choices, either I am all that I can prove exists and created this reality or there are others and therefore something beyond me. If I am all that exists and this is all an illusion then why would I fight it? I mean obviously I would not harm myself for eternity if I had a choice. If I am all that existed having a delusion then I might as long go along with it, if it is false then it will end soon enough.

From a moral perspective it is the question of taking responsibility for defining ourselves by our decisions and actions in this world because this is what we have to deal with, this is what either we put in front of ourselves or this is what was put in front of us by another (even if we are part of that other).

there seems to be a seperation in your system of belief. a dualism sort of. of course i may be wrong. perhaps they can be seen as seperate parts but also as one of the same. as humans we tend to separate or make distinctions/divide to better understanding something. thats seems to be our nature. what if it is both?

Originally posted by AQuestion
By the way, great OP, it may not be the most read thread ever on ATS; but, it is a great question and a subject to consider.

thank you!

reply to post by krossfyter


Dear krossfyter,

however, there are a number of philosophers who say that our language is built from cultural conditioning. That how we perceive things is based on a language game. We call something a "tree" and not something else and that system of thought creates/or powers our experience of how we see our world. A world based on language. Language is often mediated. Its an attempt to illustrate and make acesiable how we perceive our reality. I feel that given this as a person who questions everything I have to take this into consideration in as much as I consider or believe in Jesus and that belief system (not the fundamental christian belief system... but the idea that Jesus is God perfection in human form/ our highest state/ what we should strive for/compassion).

I am aware of the concept regarding language. I usually will bring up Helen Keller, she had no language. Language is symbolism used to identify things that we share in common. Words or symbolism allow us to share certain understandings, they allow us to share beyond common experience by comparing things to each other; but, the sharing is always incomplete. "In the beginning was the word", the ability to conceptualize, understand and predict is the nature of sentience. The moment we become self-aware is the moment that creation begins and it never stops because you cannot "un-ring a bell".

I do not believe that I can understand God or Jesus more than I am capable of understanding myself and that alone is a life long process. I seek to understand me so that I can understand others better. The Treasury Department teaches it's employees how to know counterfeit money by making them know real money first. If you know the truth then the lies cannot work on you. I guess I am saying that if I know me and do not deceive myself about my actions or intentions than I can know others better. The truth sets us free; but, it is the only truth we can know 100%, it is the truth about who we are.

there seems to be a seperation in your system of belief. a dualism sort of. of course i may be wrong. perhaps they can be seen as seperate parts but also as one of the same. as humans we tend to separate or make distinctions/divide to better understanding something. thats seems to be our nature. what if it is both?

reply to post by krossfyter


Dear krossfyter,

Tough one. Not really dualism. Unlimited possibilities is what I believe. Not everything is possible; but, you can have infinite variation. Not that anything is possible but that there are endless possibilities. It says in the bible that we can find God in all of creation. I like science and how it, when following true scientific method, is always in a state of questioning. I believe we have self awareness and are capable of endless questions. I believe that we each start from our own place and that while we will share many questions, you will ask ones that I have not and in a different order than I asked my questions. I imagine an eternity of you going your path, me going my path, us getting together when it is right, sharing our experiences as well as we can and then going our own way again.

It may sound very metaphysical; but, it is my description of heaven, an eternity without boredom, an eternity where there is always something new. The bible said that in the beginning was "the word", I take that to mean the ability to conceptualize and be self aware. The worst thing you can do to someone is to put them into isolation. That is the same as my description of hell, eternal separation from God, or if you will, other sentience for eternity. Going back to one, if it were possible, would be to return to hell, eternal solitary confinement.

reply to post by AQuestion


Humans have infinite possibilities because they can imagine. Infinite time is believed in because we can imagine infinite time. The mind has been given the power to lie to us, we create 'illusions' that is all, we imagine, we make images of possibilities.
Would it be possible to veiw the world without seeing possibilities?
The possibilies say we can make it better so we never really see what is really there. We see inside our heads.
The Rorschach ink blot world is what people imagine the world to be like.
However there is 'real' experience in 'real' time.
You are here and now experiencing what is real. Anything that is not present is not 'real' it is only thought. Thought is real if it is arising presently.

And Alan Watts is brilliant!!!!

What do I think? I think that's probably why it looks like a Rorschach inkblot but I might merely be interpreting it that way.

Originally posted by AQuestion

By the way, great OP, it may not be the most read thread ever on ATS; but, it is a great question and a subject to consider.

yeh i should of started a previously debunked post like this www.abovetopsecret.com...


so i can get more hits and interest right?! hahaha

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by krossfyter

 

Dear krossfyter,

however, there are a number of philosophers who say that our language is built from cultural conditioning. That how we perceive things is based on a language game. We call something a "tree" and not something else and that system of thought creates/or powers our experience of how we see our world. A world based on language. Language is often mediated. Its an attempt to illustrate and make acesiable how we perceive our reality. I feel that given this as a person who questions everything I have to take this into consideration in as much as I consider or believe in Jesus and that belief system (not the fundamental christian belief system... but the idea that Jesus is God perfection in human form/ our highest state/ what we should strive for/compassion).

I am aware of the concept regarding language. I usually will bring up Helen Keller, she had no language. Language is symbolism used to identify things that we share in common. Words or symbolism allow us to share certain understandings, they allow us to share beyond common experience by comparing things to each other; but, the sharing is always incomplete. "In the beginning was the word", the ability to conceptualize, understand and predict is the nature of sentience. The moment we become self-aware is the moment that creation begins and it never stops because you cannot "un-ring a bell".

I do not believe that I can understand God or Jesus more than I am capable of understanding myself and that alone is a life long process. I seek to understand me so that I can understand others better. The Treasury Department teaches it's employees how to know counterfeit money by making them know real money first. If you know the truth then the lies cannot work on you. I guess I am saying that if I know me and do not deceive myself about my actions or intentions than I can know others better. The truth sets us free; but, it is the only truth we can know 100%, it is the truth about who we are.

we all have a very subjective understanding of our world in the end. i like a lot of what you said. thanks for your respectful commentary. in the beggining was the word as the book says... but even that is mediated since its written/language.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

And Alan Watts is brilliant!!!!

Nobody said he wasn't.

reply to post by krossfyter


Dear krossfyter,

I appreciate the opportunity to have had this discussion with you. Fascinating questions that most people never consider. Stars and flags aside, we have no way of knowing who may have read this thread and how they might think about these things in the future. Most readers do not leave comments. Be well.

reply to post by AQuestion


I didn't say anyone said he wasn't. I was just saying Alan Watts is brilliant.

Originally posted by krossfyter
....



"But my dear man, reality is only a Rorschach ink-blot, you know." -
-- Alan W. Watts




what do you think of the idea behind this qoute?

edit on 29-11-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)

Reality is what you make of it. How you perceive reality is how it will be for you.

Originally posted by krossfyter
....



"But my dear man, reality is only a Rorschach ink-blot, you know." -
-- Alan W. Watts




what do you think of the idea behind this qoute?

edit on 29-11-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)

I agree with this statement. All information received and transmitted by our perceptions is both Relative and Subjective. What's the best and worst food, song, aroma, color, or touch? What makes you happy, sad, at peace, angry, comfortable, or depressed? All perceive reality differently.

great comments! thank u.


its all subjective. there is no objectivity. we decide for ourselves reality.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by krossfyter

 

As such, his ink blot analogy attempts to say that "we" create reality, while "reality" predated each of us reading this.

You aren't factoring in the belief that time is inside that reality. Not outside of it.

Originally posted by Swim2themoon

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by krossfyter

 

As such, his ink blot analogy attempts to say that "we" create reality, while "reality" predated each of us reading this.

You aren't factoring in the belief that time is inside that reality. Not outside of it.

How do you define time. Lets start with definitions so that we are on the same page. For me, time is the evolution of thought. It is the changes in emotions that define time, it is the true reality, our self awareness that is the only measure of time. I guess I believe time is bigger than perceived reality. A very metaphysical response to a very metaphysical comment, happy to continue and look closer.