Everything is an illusion

Excellent post Taj Mikel!

There is only now, your awareness and consciousness level decides how much of that now you can see at one time. You can realize we are pretty low in the ranks.

The matrix or the illusion is the limitation that you have. If you could see all that it is in the now, infinite, then you would be above the illusion or matrix. You have to be God, which we will all be, to see above it.

All that exists around you now (the illusion, matrix) is actually a limit. The infinite is what we are ultimately.

source
But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist?

No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something.

So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.

--René Descartes




Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

It's both real and illusion, depending on your perspective.

For example: It's an illusion in the sense that the universe doesn't have to construct itself in 3D in order to allow us to perceive in 3D. It could be "faked", just like in video games.

On the other hand the experience is still real, even if the toys are imaginary. We're constantly creating playgrounds for ourselves.

reply to post by Kruel


Very well stated. I would venture to say that our perception of reality is what defines that reality.

Perspective owns all. If we percieve it to be fake, then it is, for the entity perceiving. That perspective may differ for other individuals involved though.

I was recently involved in another discussion where the OP would not accept my arguments as valid because they dealt with realities that were "unreal" in the proveable sense (Spiritual realms, etc). The OP for that thread felt that my version of reality was "unreal", where I obviously perceived it to be "real". By the same token, I perceived his notions as not entirely "real", while he was certain that his views were most certainly "real".

Reality, existence, being, as we know it, is a collabrative and cooperative effort between a myriad of "personalities". Personality here being the description of a perceived entity as being "individual", or as containing it's own nature, whether it be impacted by other natures or perceived as not. Personality will here define any object, entity or group of objects recognizable as having form, physical or metaphysical.

These myriad personalities are in a constant dynamic relationship that is both cooperative, and collaborative. "Real" and "Unreal" are in fact descriptions of the same thing, from different perspectives. Both perspectives being wholly "real" in the sense that they can be experienced and observed, both independently or simultaneously.

Reality is a dynamic illusion of such complexity and extent that I don't believe our limited sensory bodies allow for complete understanding of it's grandeur.

I would maybe break it down, vaguely, into two categories:

1. Personal experience
2. Interpersonal experience

Personal experience would define an experience, or reality, in which only the experiencer is aware of said reality. The only observer being the entity who is experiencing the reality. From this perspective, "objective" observers not direcftly experiencing the manifestation of said reality will deem it as fale, fantastic, imaginary, fake or unreal. While the entity experiencing the reality will undoubtedly call it true, experiential, and real.

Interpersonal experience would describe experiences which are verifiable as having been experienced by multiple entities, all agreeing said event was a shared manifestation, or reality.

Much of what we take for granted as being "reality" fals into category 2. Much of what is discussed here falls into category 1. Still, even more than both individualy, many experiences fall into both realms of perceiving.

Reconciling the two can be very difficult, if at all possible. It gets really awkward when we begin asking, "Are these other entities I am perceiving as being here with me, inhabiting this space along my side, also real? Or are they just manifestations of my conscious states"? When we begin asking this question many of our ideas regarding "experience" and even "Self" come into question.

Typically, humanity identifies what is real with my second category of perception, interpersonal. That which is independently verifiable enough times becomes known as fact. We take for granted the things around us. We take for granted the natural order that seems to keep us here, and the planets in orbit. We take for granted that we ourselves exist and we take for granted that the people/entities around us exist.

When we ask what is real, we have to destroy all foundations and begin from just that, the beginning.

Descartes has an excellent statement, "I think, therefore I am". This is a solid statement. My awareness of my self as being an entity capable of pondering it's awareness as an entity capable of pondering awareness suits a solid ground for personal consciousness. So, from this logic I can ascertain that I do, indeed, exist in some sense.

reply to post by Kruel


But to go further and then prove logically that the entities around me also exist is a different story. If we come back to experience, we get this:

When I am aware of that which seems to be around me, it appears to be "real". When I am not aware of it, I am incapable of defining it's current state or existence, and so therefore is not verifiably "real".

Consider this: Without our sensory organs.. Our ability to interpret this external world, we would be without input. Would we then consider this existence "real"? Or would we just perceive ourselves as being real? The latter, my guess is, would be correct. Should we not have an awareness of a given state (reality/existence) we can't attach a definition to it, such as "real" or "unreal".

In this way, we can take that any states that you are conscious of, any of the current configurations of "reality" that you are conscious of, are being constantly defined by you as "real", in the sense that they have been experienced, even if only in a limited sense, by your consciousness.

This is an ancient question, "If a tree falls and noone is around, does it make noise"? This can also be stated, "If given state happens, and there are no conscious entities to experience said state, does said state actually occur"?

The answer is Yes. But why is the answer yes? This goes back to the myriad personalities all collaborativley and cooperatively participating in what we call "existence". Existence.. Reality.. Is not dependent upon the one observer we refer to as "The Self". Reality is a cause and an effect, dynamically and consistently being reshaped and reagreed upon by all entities involved. I venture to state that ALL forms in 3d existence have consciousness. From the largest burning Stars to the smallest particles making up atoms. All forms hold consciousness. This consciousness may not mirror any similarity with ours.

In this way, in all of existence, there will always be a consciousness to percieve consciousness from innumerable perspectives. Even in the vast emptinesses of Space there are forms. Atoms, particles, floating things galore. All of these, holding different forms, and therefore different consciousnesses are participating constantly, unendingly in the creation of the Universe. In the Creation of what we call Life, Existence and Reality.

Real and Unreal are the same thing. There are no forms, ideas or personalities that are wholly "unreal" in the sense that they do not exist, and there are also no forms, ideas or personalities that are wholly "real" in the sense that they can stand alone on their personal sense of Self.

All forms, ideas and personalities are dependent upon causal existence (in this perspective). All forms are subject to conditioned arising. In this way all entities are both real, and unreal. For in the collaboration both the truth of unreal (that which has not been experienced individually) and the Truth of real (that which has been experienced individually) can both be made manifest.

I can experience a portion of concept without your assistance, and you can do the same. In this way, I can assist in creating reality without your assistance, and even if it doesn't wholly match up with your perceptions, it does not lessen the experiential reality of mine, or yours.

The Universe is advanced enough to allow for ALL perspectives to be equally real in the sense that they can, and have been, perceived. The Universe is advanced enough to allow for all perspectives to again be unreal, because they can't, and have not been, perceived.

I percieve grey. You percieve black. Both perceptions are real, both are also unreal.. Simultaneously. It is the amazing grandeur of all that Is.

Dunno if described it well enough, write back if curious

reply to post by Taj Mikel


That's a very detailed and concise description, and I agree. Pretty much if we can imagine something, it is. Why limit yourself if you make the rules?

reply to post by Kruel


Haha, totally agreed! And sick quote man, I dig the "Everything is connected. We're just one being experiencing life simultaneously through different perspectives." in your signature. Very to the point

Not to offend anyone but just beacuse some slightly interesting movies come along and a couple of people write books about the world being false doesn't mean that everything is false. Beacuse who are they and who are you to say that it does or does not exist?

reply to post by nastalgik


Who said anything about movies?

The things we're talking about are ancient, Nastalgik. I'm not saying what you experience isn't real, I'm saying that it's a small portion of what is real.

Perspective is everything, and yours is not the ultimate. Neither is mine, neither is Kruel's. Check out some Buddhist principles, I suggest reading the Heart Sutra, can just Google it. Originally composed in Sanskrit, it is older than most things on this planet.

Google searches for you:

Sunya/Sunyata
Anatman/Anata
Heart Sutra
Tao
Wu Wei
Zen
Quantum Mechanics
String Theory


These things can give you a broad idea of where the info comes from and how it is validated. Let me know if you have any questions, I love discussing this type of stuff!

reply to post by leeza


I have not read the book; however, I have done a bit of research. The illusion is our power of perception. How we view the world outside of now is an illusion. Now is now and cannot be changed. Our perception of tomorrow is a fantasy. Our perception of yesterday is memory. We have no control of anything except this moment. We use measurements of time based on the movement of the earth, but it is an illusion, (not enough time, too much time on my hands, extensions of time, etc.) We also base our progress on the illusion of time (deadlines and schedules). (Too late, too early, on time, make time, kill time, etc.)

I do what I do when I do it, and that is where my power lies. I do not buy into the illusion of doing what I do according to time limits, because there really is no limit to time. Now is now and will always be now.

Maintaining a job is merely accepting the fact that other people expect results in a certain way and set clocks and calenders to accomplish the measure of progress. To get a check, I give them what they want, the way they want it while on their clock. Then I giggle when I hear a coworker claim we don't have enough time to accomplish what the boss wants. Sure we do, I say, I just don't want to stay here and do it.

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by leeza

 

Then I giggle when I hear a coworker claim we don't have enough time to accomplish what the boss wants. Sure we do, I say, I just don't want to stay here and do it.

Haha, right on. What book is it you mention in the earlier part of your post? Also, I dug your post. It was a very concise description of the issue of "now"! Props!

reply to post by Taj Mikel


My sources are a variety that can be googled (Realism). The illusion of optimism and pessimism is where I began and it just expanded from there to other illusions of the human perceptions. Time, freedom, good/bad, normal/abnormal, murder/war, the list is endless.

What interests me the most is how perception dictates behavior. History is a wonderful source of the idiot nature of humans to follow erroneous beliefs to commit acts that are deemed immoral (another perception of the mind) but are justified on the basis of the ultimate good (another perception). It amazes me how people connect the dots.

How many people are aware that freedom is the absence of authority and as long as there is a government there is no freedom? I can just go on...