Is it possible that reality is not what you think?...yes?/no?...lol

[southflorida]

thanks sf, i agree that its interesting to discuss - i just worry for the sanity of anyone who is convinced that reality is some kind of fantastical construct that has 'nothing' beyond it.

VG

VG...it is not the "nothing" like the dictionary meaning. It is not
here is a "bud" and I just smoked it, and now there is "nothing."

The nothing I'm talking about is the same thing as infinity. It is simply something without a beginning or an end.

It is something that simply "is," has always "been" and will always "be."

...this is one of the reasons...imo...we are called human "beings."

...because we are a human that is..."being."

So this nothing/infinity that I'm refering to, is not the way we look
at nothing in our every day lives. It is like what where we, the
moment we were born, if we were without all these distinctions
that we currently have, obviously before them...there was nothing.

This is why "distinctions" is such an important clue to the true nature
of our existence, just like the "present moment" is a clue. Obviously,
you are aware that you have always existed in the present moment
right? and that except for the present moment, it is impossible for
us to ever "be" anywhere else? Just these two things that we are
perceiving our reality as "distinctions" and perceiving it always in
the "present moment" point to what is really happening.

...at least this is the realizations that I have had about the nature
of consciousness that is behind everything. These insights only
point, and obviously it is impossible for us humans to grasp these
things as they are with our limited minds...but it is interesting to
at least attempt it.

...and by the way, consciousness, being, distinctions and the
present moment can be directly experienced, but it is important
to be aware that this direct experience has nothing to do with the
self-mind or intellect...which is basically a self-survival-mechanism,
and wasn't designed for directly experiencing the "absolute truth."

...your own being/consciousness that you "are" right nowis what
makes this direct experience possible.

...it is happening right now anyway, you are simply not conscious of it,
and this is because your internal dialogue and your mind are what
take all of your attention, and plus being/consciousness is not
something we PERCEIVE...but something that we ARE.

 

[southflorida]

lol that description fits both SFs view and my own, which are opposing points of view.

GMT...that is funny...but that is because we look at NOTHING
a little differently...but not much

 

[southflorida]

heroic doses lol, i went thru a terrance mckenna phase, he makes ya think , i wish he was still with us, someone else needs to stand up like he did and take the reins !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKOO-VB_yts

this is a really trippy video where he talks about his experience

 

[southflorida]

How genuinely we experience life is determined by the level of our
consciousness. Unless we are open and willing to directly experience
the truth for ourselves, there is no way for such an experience to
take place.

If we rely on hearsay, or fill in all the blanks with beliefs, no genuine
experience is likely to occur. Any time we can open up and Not-Know,
we clear a space for understanding something beyond our habits
of thinking.

This is how someone like Picasso might be able to see the world in
a different way. And, by the way, evidence of gravity was there
all along for Newton, but it took a certain "transcendance" of his
knowledge before he could conceive of it.

...and this is why I started this thread, to just spread the word
about our natural state of not-knowing, and what is possible, when
we finally realize that we truly don't know anything...and that it's
okay...that beyond this not-knowing is the "real truth."

This is the key to the very source of creativity that is available to us
as human beings in every circumstance, and we can all use it to help
find our way to a deeper and more genuine experience of ourselves!

Here is an easy way to look at what I'm trying to convey:

Imagine that there are two DISTINCT aspects of yourself. One is
what you are originally...or naturally. It is your "Being" in the human
being that you are, the part without pretense, cultural programming,
or any other supplementary process.

The other aspect of yourself is what you have come to know as "your-self,"
the "human part," the self-identity that is created and maintained through
all the beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge you acquired in life.

Since it's all you know (this second aspect) it's not easy to see that this
identification with "your-self" is strictly a SECONDARY process. Your self-identity
is conceptual; your Being exists "prior" to concept!

...the primary DISTINCTION between these two parts is that "Self-Knows," "Being-Is"

In this thread, I'm trying to discuss Being, and not the self-identity that
we have created through cultural/societal programming.

This is Consciousness/Being, and to experience this part of ourselves
DIRECTLY...we have to leave all of our programming, beliefs, and
assumptions at the door, and enter the domain that is the true
nature of who we are, always have been, and always will be!

...obviously, we have to pick this self-identity back up, when we
come back from the domain of Being/Consciousness, but can you
imagine the PERSPECTIVE that your "self" will have from then on,
and all the illusions that will simply fall away?

No matter how and when this occurs, it will feel as if an invisible mist
has parted to reveal a genuine glimpse of a simpler and more genuine
self, uncluttered with complications and affectations. This moment is
truly self-validating, since in that instant an undeniably real experience
of ourselves is awakened, and is remembered.

Whether this comes as an inkling or a full-blown awakening, the direction
is always the same, it is toward consciousness/being...what is REAL.

 

[sac beh]

While dealing with first principles may be a common theme in courses on metaphysics, the term itself, if you trace the route of the term, does not actually make that a requirement for a topic of discussion to fall within the definition of metaphysics. for instance, the question of whether it is necessary for a creator to be omnipotent in order to create the universe, could be considered a first principle, and may therefore fall within that definition, however considering whether omnipotence is a requirement for a being to be considered a god does not. Yet both would fall within the realm of metaphysics. Though personally, and I may well be wrong on this, I wouldn't consider the topic of the big bang et al, to be metaphysical in nature, as it would fall within the remit of pure physics. The nature of the universe is a question that is open to interpretation, and I'm not good with those, I kind of need solid questions to even consider them as real questions.

Its interesting because Aristotle is one of the first significant contributions to formal metaphysics, he wrote a whole book called Metaphysics in which he considers the topic to be the search for first causes, fundamental principles and the most basic axioms. The most metaphysical question there is is, What is Being? And for Aristotle Being is substance. His book on metaphysics is basically a treatise on how to discover basic axioms using logic, along the way denying that anything infinite or non-sensible can exist.

Plato perhaps went a different route with metaphysics positing non-sensible forms to exist as first causes, and this is where we get the other definition of metaphysics really, the definition that allows one to play in the realms of spirits and non-existent things.

But for Aristotle this type of metaphysics was impossible because you can't get to spirits and non-existent things like Nothing through logic (metaphysics) or sense (physics).

 

[HempKat]

of course, I wrote that to let you know that what I'm writing about
is from my experiences, and this is why it might sound crazy, but
I'm doing my best using words to describe what I experienced, and
it isn't very easy...and not working out too well...to be honest

Could it be that your experience is unique and the only way your experience could have a chance of being understood by others is if they had the exact same experience? Although being that each person is unique and experiences anything and everything from that unique perspective chances are better then not that even if they had the exact same experiences as you they probably would come to understand that experience differently then you and therefore would still have difficulty grasping the explaination of your experience.

Also it would seem to follow that since your experience is just the sum of your perceptions of reality and everyone percieves reality from a unique and different perspective, whatever words you pick to describe your perception would not make sense to another because their perception is not the same.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

when you want to understand the english language, a dictionary is essential. You can make up your own language if you like, but dont then try to call it english, as it isnt.

If I chose to make up my own language, I wouldn't misspell.

Disco, yes, the process of attaining, as I said, not the point of view that has already been concieved. I too have studied psychology, and philosophy on a formal basis. Please dont try to tell me that the english language doesnt mean the same thing within those fields, it does.

philosophy, psychology and cognitive science

receiving, collecting, action of taking possession, apprehension with the mind or senses

In philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science, perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information. The word "perception" comes from the Latin words perceptio, percipio, and means "receiving, collecting, action of taking possession, apprehension with the mind or senses."[1]
Perception is one of the oldest fields in psychology. The oldest quantitative law in psychology is the Weber-Fechner law, which quantifies the relationship between the intensity of physical stimuli and their perceptual effects. The study of perception gave rise to the Gestalt school of psychology, with its emphasis on holistic approach.
What one perceives is a result of interplays between past experiences, including one’s culture, and the interpretation of the perceived.

I believe the quote speaks for itself.

So back to your word, illusion.

An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation. While illusions distort reality, they are generally shared by most people.[1] Illusions may occur with more of the human senses than vision, but visual illusions, optical illusions, are the most well known and understood. The emphasis on visual illusions occurs because vision often dominates the other senses. For example, individuals watching a ventriloquist will perceive the voice is coming from the dummy since they are able to see the dummy mouth the words.[2] Some illusions are based on general assumptions the brain makes during perception. These assumptions are made using organizational principles, like Gestalt, an individual's ability of depth perception and motion perception, and perceptual constancy. Other illusions occur because of biological sensory structures within the human body or conditions outside of the body within one’s physical environment.
The term illusion refers to a specific form of sensory distortion. Unlike a hallucination, which is a distortion in the absence of a stimulus, an illusion describes a misinterpretation of a true sensation. For example, hearing voices regardless of the environment would be a hallucination, whereas hearing voices in the sound of running water (or other auditory source) would be an illusion.

 

[southflorida]

Could it be that your experience is unique and the only way your experience could have a chance of being understood by others is if they had the exact same experience? Although being that each person is unique and experiences anything and everything from that unique perspective chances are better then not that even if they had the exact same experiences as you they probably would come to understand that experience differently then you and therefore would still have difficulty grasping the explaination of your experience.

Also it would seem to follow that since your experience is just the sum of your perceptions of reality and everyone percieves reality from a unique and different perspective, whatever words you pick to describe your perception would not make sense to another because their perception is not the same.

yes, this is why it is so difficult to describe. Although it seems the
experience of Being is the same, since it is the foundation or the
true nature of our experience, but as soon as we, as individuals try
to put it into words, the uniqueness of our perspective turns it into
a "unique" description of this experience, and obviously, this is not
the experience itself.

...but it is still an interesting attempt, and something I have a lot
of fun sharing with people on this site, because, generally people
that smoke weed do experience life from different perspectives, and
actually notice these differences, which is what makes the biggest
difference, this NOTICING, and cannabis is what seems to allows a
person to notice that his/her perspective is different.

...either way, this is the only site where these ideas can be openly
discussed in such a matter, even though many folks still think that
I'm not totally normal. This part is probably true to some extent...imo

 

[AfroSheep]

I like this discussion, now would i be right or wrong to say, the experiences under LSD/Mushies or any other halucinagenic drug, all the "tripped out" "things" people see, are real, just your brain is perceiving reality in a different dimension to that everyone else is at that time, anything is possible in reality as long as your brain itself can perceive these "things" or NO-things as stated.

We perceive life the way we are bought up and taught to perceive it as we learn during our growth as an entity.

I could be speaking garbage but does this make sense?

 

[Centrum]

I think your original question can summarize and answer all the questions and arguments posted in this thread.

Do you think that reality is not what you think?

Buddha said

What we think, we become.

A good example for you guys growing illegally would be.
" think paranoid, become paranoid."

Maybe our distinction is a reflection of something else ?

Thanks lots of interesting things to read here.
Take care

 

[southflorida]

I like this discussion, now would i be right or wrong to say, the experiences under LSD/Mushies or any other halucinagenic drug, all the "tripped out" "things" people see, are real, just your brain is perceiving reality in a different dimension to that everyone else is at that time, anything is possible in reality as long as your brain itself can perceive these "things" or NO-things as stated.

We perceive life the way we are bought up and taught to perceive it as we learn during our growth as an entity.

I could be speaking garbage but does this make sense?

The best way to describe it is this:

Imagine that there are two DISTINCT aspects of yourself. One is
what you are originally...or naturally. It is your "Being" in the human
being that you are, the part without pretense, cultural programming,
or any other supplementary process.

The other aspect of yourself is what you have come to know as "your-self,"
the "human part," the self-identity that is created and maintained through
all the beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge you acquired in life.

Since it's all you know (this second aspect) it's not easy to see that this
identification with "your-self" is strictly a SECONDARY process. Your self-identity
is conceptual; your Being exists "prior" to concept!

...perception is SECONDARY, while being is PRIMARY, what is there
before perception, during perception, and after perception.

...Being simply "is."

...What we perceive is a limited part of what is actually there,
because our perceptions are limited. Even our eyes, they only see
the light that is reflected of the objects, and not the objects
themselves.

...if you are "tripping" and not seeing the object that is actually
there, then you have a distorted perception.

...many of the things we see in life are not the actual objects, but
"concepts" of these objects, which means we distort our perceptions
through the "creation" of concepts, and we don't need to be trippin
in order to do this, it just happens.

 

[HempKat]

yes, this is why it is so difficult to describe. Although it seems the
experience of Being is the same, since it is the foundation or the
true nature of our experience, but as soon as we, as individuals try
to put it into words, the uniqueness of our perspective turns it into
a "unique" description of this experience, and obviously, this is not
the experience itself.

...but it is still an interesting attempt, and something I have a lot
of fun sharing with people on this site, because, generally people
that smoke weed do experience life from different perspectives, and
actually notice these differences, which is what makes the biggest
difference, this NOTICING, and cannabis is what seems to allows a
person to notice that his/her perspective is different.

...either way, this is the only site where these ideas can be openly
discussed in such a matter, even though many folks still think that
I'm not totally normal. This part is probably true to some extent...imo

Ah normal, now that's a metaphysical question is it not? What is normal?

 

[southflorida]

I think your original question can summarize and answer all the questions and arguments posted in this thread.

true...but in the domain of the self-mind everything is not that simple

Buddha said: What we think, we become.
A good example for you guys growing illegally would be.
" think paranoid, become paranoid."

...it is written that he did say this, but obviously he meant
the self, that thinks of itself as separate from Being, because
Being simply is, and does not need to become. But in the domain of
the self-mind this is true! And this basically points that it is our
assumptions, beliefs, and emotions that create what we become.
And as strange as it is, at least for most people, emotions are also
concepts created by the mind, and are more activities, than feelings

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=193252

in that thread I explain why that is my perspective on it.

Maybe our distinction is a reflection of something else ?

it is a reflection of consciousness/being, or to be more correct a
function of it. But this function is not separate from consciousness/being
it is basically consciousness/being...which is a major paradox, but
for absolute truths...paradox is not a problem...it is only a problem
for our limited self-mind.

Thanks lots of interesting things to read here.

many people have contributed in this thread, and it actually
turned out to be a lot more "interesting" to the members of this
forum than I thought it would be when I started.

which shows that many folks are really contemplating about these
things and are ready to share their experiences!

 

[southflorida]

Ah normal, now that's a metaphysical question is it not? What is normal?

...crazy would be a better word...lol...in fact quite a few reps
have been given with those exact words.

...normal is a normal word isn't it?

 

[HempKat]

...crazy would be a better word...lol...in fact quite a few reps
have been given with those exact words.

...normal is a normal word isn't it?

No, normal is a distinction made by the self mind.

 

[southflorida]

No, normal is a distinction made by the self mind.

...aaahhhhh...there's my two favorite words...distinction and self-mind

...what a life I would have if I didn't make the first all the time, and
didn't have the second...at all.

...it seems it would be...no-life

 

[GMT]

How could I have been so misguided, thankyou GMT for explaining it to me.

Annoying when someone inserts something else into the quote format isn't it disco. Please use "[/quote]" "

" when you want to insert additional comments into a quote from someone else.

Yes that quote in your latter post does speak for itself, it also backs up what I posted, which was a correction of your original post, which so completely misunderstood the meanings of the terms. Spelling can be corrected by the use of a spell checker, sadly the correct usage of the words though can be overlooked by such techonology. I am not great at spelling, my english education was always more concerned with the correct usage of the language, rather than its spelling. If the greatest criticism that you can offer on any of my posts, is their spelling, then I'm happy.


Hey Sac, quite right, however, my usage of words is not derrived from how they have been used by others, but rather what their meanings are.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Annoying when someone inserts something else into the quote format isn't it disco. Please use "

" "

" when you want to insert additional comments into a quote from someone else.

Care to give an example? It's not my intent to mislead. Would help if you'd support your critique a little better. For example, the auto quote above didn't quote correctly, could be one of your illusions.

Yes that quote in your latter post does speak for itself, it also backs up what I posted, which was a correction of your original post, which so completely misunderstood the meanings of the terms.

Lol, I reiterated.

Spelling can be corrected by the use of a spell checker, sadly the correct usage of the words though can be overlooked by such techonology. I am not great at spelling, my english education was always more concerned with the correct usage of the language, rather than its spelling. If the greatest criticism that you can offer on any of my posts, is their spelling, then I'm happy.

Whatever, oh pontificator.

 

[GMT]

your post 127 quoting my post 95 had your own comment inserted into it.

lol no that was the result of the system reading "its" language literally too.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Thank you, I'll take a look see.

Error fixed, GMT.