The Two Realities.

Our entire reality is constructed of beliefs. We believe we are who we are for example, we believe in our name, in our job title, in our work place. We think these things "actually exist" but they are subjective constructs. You can change yourself into anything you can imagine, and project any image into the world you like, learn to associate with any number of people, and eventually become something other than what you are today.

In other words, even what you think of as your Self is nothing but a subjective construct of ideas, beliefs, and desires.

So what actually exists? Even within you? To me the answer is Pure Being. In a state of Pure Being, or some might say Universal Consciousness or whatever term you wish to apply to it, you are experiencing reality as it is, directly, and imposing no filters upon it. You don't believe or disbelieve in it, you don't develop ideas about it, you don't deny or accept it. You experience it.

Afterwards you take that experience and construct a belief. "I went outside today and experienced the sun, it was really hot. Therefore I believe the sun is hot."

"I read an article today, it said the sun is very hot, a machine measured this, I choose to believe in the machine"

"Today someone told me that God created the sun, I choose to believe that this is so because God is good and the sun is also good."

However all these detract from objective reality, which is the experience itself.

Some detractions come closer to the objective experience than others. But try telling someone about the heat of the sun who has lived in a cave that is 50 degrees their whole life. Try explaining heat at all, they will have ideas, you can even convince them, make them believe. But they must leave the cave and stand in a moment of pure being to really experience what your trying to convey.

Finally I'd like to take this thought back to the two friends. Its true that in many cases common interests bring people together, however you can experience someone objectively as much as you can experience anything. You don't have to project onto others, you can accept them for everything they are, like you would accept a tree. You don't need to call it an oak, or label it as anything, you can just experience it, its sounds, its creaking, its character, without judgment, projection or reservation.

However, this is just my experience with reality. It very well may differ from your own

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Thank you for joining the conversation! I enjoyed reading your post, it seems like you have a reasonable approach on the matter.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by v01i0

 

You live in your own world and for the most part when you think you are having relationships with others, you are really only having a relationship with all you project onto them.

I see what you mean! Yes indeed this is the case. Let's take love as an example: Excluding the true, transcendental and pure love, most people saying they love something are loving themselves. This is why many relationships fail; one projecting oneself onto another, gets disappointed once the other decides to act not according to one's projections.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by v01i0

 

So it's really not a positive thing to focus primarily on the objective reality as some sort of higher truth. Instead configure your own subjective reality consciously instead of reflexively. Your subjective experience is really all you can ever know directly... it is your soul. You might as well enjoy it.

(Bold by OP)

True. It is important to live in a balanced way, so that you recognize both aspect in yourself and others as well. One's subjective experience of objective reality is quite as important in order to remain stable and sane mentally. I bold a part of the quote which I found to be quite important factor as well.

For now, I will refrain from further commenting and instead check the media file you've posted.

Thanks

-v

[edit on 5-11-2009 by v01i0]

reply to post by Seventhdoor


Before I succumb into the thrall of media, I just wanted to comment that your post is quite thoughtful. Indeed we build ourselves in such way, labeling and giving properties that are not important, maybe even illusionary. What is left, when all of this has been stripped? Maybe the pure being itself as you suggest. A fully clothed monkey? (as I think K. Uppaluri Gopala once described himself).

-v

Originally posted by sirnex

It depends on your definition of reality I suppose. If you view the universe as it exists without requiring your existence as being reality, then what you subjectively experience is moot to what reality is. If you view reality as only existing because you perceive it to exist, then we are all either Gods or none of us actually exist or none of us objectively exist and are only the imagination of some greater being. Yet, if any of that subjectivity is true, then it need not matter how we conduct ourselves, because we are not real.

There's that word again: real.
Why would an entirely subjective reality (supposing it existed) not be "real"?
Does "reality" necessitate at least two pair of eyes who appear to see the same? Does it need a consensus? And if it does - why? That's the crucial question, I think.

The double-slit experiments with photons (not to mention thought experiments, like Schrodinger's) indicate that "reality" could be very much dependent on perception. As long as there is a single pair of eyes to observe a reality - it is real.

By the way Ethereal Gargoyle, that is exactly the reason why I prefer using word 'objective' instead of 'real'. Because even the very subjective reality can be extremely real to a person (otherwise we wouldn't have those poor people in the asylums), even it is not real to anyone else. But then again, it is all just conception.

Just a quick insert of an opinion, carry on

-v

[edit on 5-11-2009 by v01i0]

reply to post by Ethereal Gargoyle


There's that word again: real.
Why would an entirely subjective reality (supposing it existed) not be "real"?
Does "reality" necessitate at least two pair of eyes who appear to see the same? Does it need a consensus? And if it does - why? That's the crucial question, I think.

I don't think it does. There is no logical reason to believe the universe just didn't exist until we observed it to exist or until we were able to abstractly think and describe it.

The double-slit experiments with photons (not to mention thought experiments, like Schrodinger's) indicate that "reality" could be very much dependent on perception. As long as there is a single pair of eyes to observe a reality - it is real.

I disagree with your description of the theory and experiments involved. The observer effect doesn't inherently describe a conscious observer nor do the experiments even involve one.

Intresting concetp.

Is this like astral projection?

reply to post by gareth01422

Originally posted by gareth01422
Intresting concetp.

Is this like astral projection?

No, not least in my opinion. Saying it briefly so you don't have to read through whole OP, it is merely the portrayal of psychological and physical realities. Is that trivial enough?

Actually, I guess that the terms psychological and physical realities are better than subjective and objective ones, for this way it describes the whole idea better. What do you think?

-v

Hi

I think I understand.

My reality is by far not the same as the reality of my racist friend. ( From my reply on your other thread. : Be an individual. Unite.

What makes it hard for me to understand is that the both of us spend years hanging out ding the same stuff with the same friends ???

His reality is different from mine yet we live in the same reality.

I think this is a mind provoking idea and an absolute truth. I am called a pacifist or humanist but I will defend myself and protect my loved ones if TSHTF. You must or you will be walked on. Until this happens I am still in their reality something what I know I'm not. Cause I have been in a situation I had to be violent. Without any provocation from my side I must add. Luckily daddy thought it was important for me to learn to defend myself and hit back.

Back on topic...
How much of a difference reality did my attacker experience that could have made him decide to attack in the first place ?



Mmm.... Intriguing.