The Myth of Objective Reality

[southflorida]

SF I really liked this my friend

So the "As-Itself", that could be the collection of cells, molecules or atoms that individually comprise what we interpret as a 'tree'?

The unpainted vs painted canvas of the primary reality was pretty cool also.

It reminds me of something Christopher Hitchens once said concerning Purgatory - it doesn't matter what the Pope or Vatican says on the topic, whether it remains dogma or is let go, there are millions of people across the world who have lost unbaptized babies who have truly believed for however long that their child exists in this place. Objectively it seems like nonsense yet to these people it was as real and tangible as an atom is to us. Frankly there a thousands of examples of these, not delusions, but self-created worlds that exist within an individual's mind.

yes, as-itself, this would be whatever is the fundamental nature of the thing, no matter if it is a Pizza or Consciousness itself

by the way, an atom is also a concept and hearsay to us, we have never personally experienced an atom, it has been passed down to us through beliefs from society (science domain).

Consciousness is something personal and direct, and because of this it cannot become an organized process.

This is why if this topic is really interesting, one must be ready to walk down this path, mostly all alone. But, from my viewpoint it is worth it.

 

[BullDogUK]

by the way, an atom is also a concept and hearsay to us, we have never personally experienced an atom, it has been passed down to us through beliefs from society (science domain).

Yeah I think I finally understand that point haha. Still though, there is a point where language and convenience means its easy to get them muddled. Equally I'd argue that science is not belief, it's the systematic removal of the human bias and thus an attempt to get as close to the base, primary, reality as possible. Obviously a complete understanding of that world is not fully possible as the data must be interpreted by an individual at some point and thus enter into this secondary reality. How cool, our attempts to understand prevent us from ever truly understanding

 

[1TWISTEDTRUCKER]

coming from you S4L...i'll take that as a compliment

Arent We ALL Self-Made

I know I am, and now its time to RE-MAKE MY Self.
Its Not Impossible.



Peace; 1TT

 

[HempKat]

That response took a while HK

Since my response to your post, and thanks to other ic members that posted here, I have made a distinction between primary reality and secondary reality.

Primary reality is what is there before we perceive IT and interpret with our perception organs, and the secondary reality being the reality after we perceive and interpret IT.

So, in the second reality we have objects, like buildings that look similar to humans that can see, and we have subjective interpretations of these objects that are based on the things you wrote above (sense organs are subject to being imperfect and to having defects, plus different viewpoints based on programmed cultural beliefs and assumptions).

What I'm writing about in this thread is NOT about perceiving things slightly differently and trying to make that mean more, it's about the fact that there is a PRIMARY reality that we CAN'T perceive with our senses and interpret with our mind.

It is NOT separate from the secondary reality, it simply has a different NATURE.

Plus, the secondary reality is a sub-set of the primary reality, meaning that the secondary reality exists inside the primary reality, and NOT the other way around.

In other words, Consciousness is the FIRST thing, while self, mind, awareness, interpretation, meaning, emotional charge are all - SECONDARY events and processes.

The motivation behind the desire to directly become conscious of this primary reality has nothing to do with meaning, because it is MEANINGLESS, the motivation behind the desire to become directly conscious of this primary reality is simply wanting to experience what IS true, what is original, what is authentic.

You know, without all the cultural BS, that includes all the programmed beliefs and assumptions based on nothing BUT concept and hearsay.

Wanting to have a direct, personal consciousness of the TRUTH is something that can ONLY be understood if you also want it.

You either want it or you don't.

It has nothing to do with being more successful at survival, it is NOT about experiencing victory or relief, or getting what you want while avoiding what you don't want.

It is simply wanting to know the truth for-itself and as-itself.

And this is a 100% meaningless pursuit, because this primary reality is meaningless, meaning that it is without meaning, since it is what is first, what is original and authentic.

Secondary events are focused on SELF-SURVIVAL.

Primary reality is about BEING.

Sorry if you perceive my response as having taken a while, to me it was just since the last time I was here which I don't feel was all that long ago yet for you it was "a while" yet in reality it was 5 days.

I don't see how you can make such specific claims about the nature of something which you yourself say we can't perceive with our senses or interpret with our minds. Who is to say this primary reality is something different then our perception of it? You? You can't possibly know that, you can only assume and guess at it. I mean it sounds to me like you want there to be more meaning to things then what there is and so you've come up with this theory that reality is just a myth.

Let's go back to the example of the green building vs blue building. I mentioned the possibility of senses being defective because there are things like color blindness and defects to the eyes that might make something appear more greenish then blueish to a person and so is it that they really perceive something different or is it that the senses of one person interpreted what it perceived differently then the senses of the next person? In other words the thing being perceived is the same for both people but because of the defect the one person perceives it erroneously. Another possibility is that they may both perceive exactly the same thing and both have normally operating senses but one of the two was taught the color they perceive is called blue while the other is taught it is called green. In that scenario the both experience and perceive the exact same reality but one person was taught incorrectly and therefore communicates his perception incorrectly. For that person in his mind it is called green even though what his eyes are actually perceiving is blue. That doesn't mean his reality is different it just means some other factor has caused him to describe it different.

I guess that's what I'm having a problem with, you keep suggesting that the primary reality can't be perceived by our senses and interpreted by our minds and yet that's exactly how the primary reality is perceived and interpreted. If not then what is it our senses are perceiving and our minds interpreting? Just because two people describe that reality differently doesn't mean they can't perceive it or interpret it, it just means they can't communicate it the same which really would be a tertiary reality if our direct perception is considered a secondary reality. Like with the person that was taught blue is called green, when he says he see's a green building did he perceive it differently from the person that saw it as blue or did he just erroneously call it green because he was taught that blue = green? You also say secondary events are focused on self-survival and while I'll agree it can be I would strongly disagree that all secondary events/realities are about self survival. A key aspect of self survival in a society is fitting in and so to say a building is green when everyone else says it is blue would be to set yourself apart or not fitting in. If your blanket statement was accurate and all perceptions of reality was about self survival then the person who perceives the building is green his mind would tell him it's blue so he would fit in. It doesn't though, his mind tells him it is what he perceives it as but then he makes a choice to hide that and says it's blue in order to fit in. In other words this notion of self survival has nothing at all to do with reality or our perceptions of reality but rather to do with our perceptions of who we are within the bigger picture of reality.

 

[southflorida]

Yeah I think I finally understand that point haha. Still though, there is a point where language and convenience means its easy to get them muddled. Equally I'd argue that science is not belief, it's the systematic removal of the human bias and thus an attempt to get as close to the base, primary, reality as possible. Obviously a complete understanding of that world is not fully possible as the data must be interpreted by an individual at some point and thus enter into this secondary reality. How cool, our attempts to understand prevent us from ever truly understanding

Science may not be belief, but an atom to us is a belief. We believe and assume that there is an atom based on second-hand knowledge.

If we divided everything we believe and assume in this secondary reality, into experiences we have actually had directly, and stuff that we simply believe and assume WITHOUT having direct experience, the pile with direct experiences will be tiny, like a small hill, while the other pile (no direct experience) will be like Mount Everest

This is true, our mind and perceptions actually prevent us from grasping the truth.

But, we CAN directly be conscious of the truth, because after all, we are IT.

 

[southflorida]

Arent We ALL Self-Made

I know I am, and now its time to RE-MAKE MY Self.

Its Not Impossible.

yes 1TT, you are absolutely right, we are all making and re-making our "self."

and this is something many folks ignore, that our "self" is completely made-up, and if we look back as far as our memory can go back into the imagined past, we will see at one point there was nothing there.

So, we, or to be more correct our "conceptual-self-identity" is completely made up, and NOT fundamentally real, in and of itself.

Or, at least, it is not primary, not authentic, not original.

It is like a Pepsi, and NOT Coca-Cola, which is the original

 

[southflorida]

Sorry if you perceive my response as having taken a while, to me it was just since the last time I was here which I don't feel was all that long ago yet for you it was "a while" yet in reality it was 5 days.

Yeah, of course it is not that long, I was just trying to point out that during those five days a few important distinctions have been made by the members posting here. The most important is the distinction between primary and secondary reality being more correct, than using objective and subjective, since objective and subjective both occur in the secondary reality, while the primary reality is not-known.

I don't see how you can make such specific claims about the nature of something which you yourself say we can't perceive with our senses or interpret with our minds.

I am writing about my own personal direct experiences and obviously there is no way for me to prove them to anyone. My point is NOT to convince anyone, even though my writing style may lean toward this, but to share my experiences in order to point at the possibility that others might be able to experience it also.

But, if someone does or not, in my own personal experiences, the nature of reality has been made directly conscious, and this occured as a direct consciousness, and not an interpretation using perception and the intellect.

Who is to say this primary reality is something different then our perception of it? You? You can't possibly know that, you can only assume and guess at it. I mean it sounds to me like you want there to be more meaning to things then what there is and so you've come up with this theory that reality is just a myth.

I can't prove my own conscious experience, no one can. In the world we share we can only speak in relative terms, we cannot communicate about absolute truths.

Whatever we communicate, it will always refer or point toward the truth or anything else for that matter, it will never be the truth.

And actually, I have said it many times that this whole pursuit is meaningless, because meaning is derived through perception and interpretation, it is never INHERENT in anything.

What does life mean? What does existence mean? What does an apple mean?

They are absolutely meaningless, unless we use perception and interpretation and PROVIDE them with meaning.

An apple is simple BEING an apple, it has no meaning.

It exists for-itself and as-itself.

Our perception and interpretation takes what IS there and adds meaning by asking - what does this object MEAN TO ME?

So, meaning is always added to what is actually THERE.

When we add meaning, we call it an apple, it becomes a fruit that can be eaten, thrown away when spoiled, or can be used to play catch, or for many other uses.

All of these MEANINGS will be what the apple means for-us, NOT for-itself and as-itself.

For-itself and as-itself it is simply what it IS.

This may sound kind of stupid, but it is how it is.

The truth doesn't have to sound like anything, it has to simply be true.

Let's go back to the example of the green building vs blue building. I mentioned the possibility of senses being defective because there are things like color blindness and defects to the eyes that might make something appear more greenish then blueish to a person and so is it that they really perceive something different or is it that the senses of one person interpreted what it perceived differently then the senses of the next person? In other words the thing being perceived is the same for both people but because of the defect the one person perceives it erroneously. Another possibility is that they may both perceive exactly the same thing and both have normally operating senses but one of the two was taught the color they perceive is called blue while the other is taught it is called green. In that scenario the both experience and perceive the exact same reality but one person was taught incorrectly and therefore communicates his perception incorrectly. For that person in his mind it is called green even though what his eyes are actually perceiving is blue. That doesn't mean his reality is different it just means some other factor has caused him to describe it different.

I want to point out that you keep referring to the second reality, which is based on perception, interpretation, and meaning, which are all secondary processes that our senses and intellect (mind) provide us with.

The primary reality is first, it is WHAT IS perceived and interpreted, it is NOT the interpretation of the IN-DIRECT perception.

This whole thread was started on the FACT that our senses are in-direct and that we have NO WAY of perceiving the primary reality.

Scientists have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that our senses are indirect and have very strong proof that everything is made from atoms. This alone shows that what we are perceiving IS not what is actually there.

...I'm not saying there are atoms there...btw...I'm saying what is there is not-known.

Obviously scientists don't go deep into explaining what this actually means that our senses are in-direct because most people would really freak out if the scientists came straight out and said it. But, I'm saying what it means, and many are having a difficulty with it.

Imagine what would happen if the masses were told this in a way that they couldn't ignore it. There would be some sh*t hitting the ceilings

I guess that's what I'm having a problem with, you keep suggesting that the primary reality can't be perceived by our senses and interpreted by our minds and yet that's exactly how the primary reality is perceived and interpreted. If not then what is it our senses are perceiving and our minds interpreting?

What's wrong with the answer that it is not-known?

Not-knowing is what is true, it is what is authentic, original, and is what always exists before ANY knowing occurs.

But, even when knowing occurs through conceptual processes like perception, interpretation, and meaning, the NOT-KNOWING does not actually disappear anywhere.

Not-knowing is simply what always IS.

This is a hard thing to accept because in our culture not-knowing is considered a bad thing, and we don't want to appear as if we don't know because people might think of us as stupid or ignorant or whatever.

But, this is ridiculous, because not-knowing is an authentic state of being a human.

We don't know 99.9999999999999% of everything there is to know, and for some reason we try to live as if it's actually the other way around.

Why? What's wrong with simply not-knowing? Not having beliefs and assumption? Why do we need to believe and assume in the first place?

Isn't it because we FEAR not-knowing? Where does this fear come from? Isn't it from society and culture?

Just because two people describe that reality differently doesn't mean they can't perceive it or interpret it, it just means they can't communicate it the same which really would be a tertiary reality if our direct perception is considered a secondary reality. Like with the person that was taught blue is called green, when he says he see's a green building did he perceive it differently from the person that saw it as blue or did he just erroneously call it green because he was taught that blue = green?

This is a good distinction, about the tertiary reality, which shows that our conceptual processing is like a snowball, and on top of perception and interpretation we add more perception and interpretation, and in the end we get lost in this whole muddy puddle of concepts.

My viewpoint is it is more beneficial and more authentic to move toward having NO CONCEPTS, no beliefs, no assumptions, instead of piling all the made-up inventions of the mind on something that is already TRUE.

You also say secondary events are focused on self-survival and while I'll agree it can be I would strongly disagree that all secondary events/realities are about self survival. A key aspect of self survival in a society is fitting in and so to say a building is green when everyone else says it is blue would be to set yourself apart or not fitting in. If your blanket statement was accurate and all perceptions of reality was about self survival then the person who perceives the building is green his mind would tell him it's blue so he would fit in. It doesn't though, his mind tells him it is what he perceives it as but then he makes a choice to hide that and says it's blue in order to fit in. In other words this notion of self survival has nothing at all to do with reality or our perceptions of reality but rather to do with our perceptions of who we are within the bigger picture of reality.

Our perceptions and intellect have been designed (evolved is a better word probably) for one reason and one reason only.

SELF-SURVIVAL.

This can be easily observed, if one actually observes it without bias, in the FACT that every perception that we have, we interpret it, and the mind provides us with an emotional charge in relation to what we are perceiving and interpreting.

This IS what I'm calling an effect. We are affected by absolutely everything in our experience, because we are living in a charged field, and this whole field exists ONLY because we are in a state of constant self-survival.

There is NOTHING outside of this, because that is WHAT our perceptions are FOR.

Obviously there are different levels of these emotional charges, these effects, some may not even register in our awareness, but if they register or not, if you pay attention you will see that every perception affects us, without exception.

This is because our self-mind is a survival tool, it interprets ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that shows up in its field of awareness and it interprets everything through the question WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME?

You can see it by simply looking at objects in your current experience and looking at different colors, everything will produce a different effect because the self-mind is in a state of self-survival and has to interpret and provide you with a charge in order to let you know HOW TO RELATE to any circumstance.

That example above, with the person seeing a green building and saying it's blue is a perfect example of self-survival.

He does not have to see it AS blue, this is NOT what I'm saying happens, he sees it as green, but says he sees it as blue in order to survive as a self-identity in the society where he lives.

For him fitting in is a part of this self-survival, and he will say it's blue even if he perceives it as green.

This is called misrepresentation, or simply lying, and it is something that happens A LOT because we view self-survival as MUCH more important than the truth.

In fact, self-survival IS the only thing that is important, and everything we do and are in this SECONDARY REALITY relates to this self-survival process.

We are in a state of surviving as the "self" that we believe and assume that we ARE. Everything that is identified AS the "self" will be promoted, protected, and more will be created on top of this, because the "self" is a snowball of concepts that NEVER stops growing.

 

[southflorida]

Don't get me wrong, I love the secondary reality, weed, cars, hot chicks are really awesome and I'm not sitting in a room or on some mountain-top...focusing on the primary reality...24/7/365...lol

I'm living my life, I have a family, two grown-up children, a beautiful wife, five dogs, a cat, friends, business-partners, properties, cars, a successful business, etc.

But, in addition to this, I also want to directly experience the TRUTH in my own personal experience and NOT believe and assume BS that has been shoved down my throat by the culture where I grew up and where I continue to grow (evolve).

Here's a video to celebrate the finer things in life (second reality).

Lloyd Banks Feat. Juelz Santana - Beamer, Benz Or Bentley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJMnzdUsTBk&list=PLlO8EXP2-rIfZZLWTIR1AF88GZQPPGL7C&feature=mh_lolz

and one for the folks that don't like RAP:

Rammstein - Ich Tu Dir Weh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkVZdHU_3dI&list=PLlO8EXP2-rIe0UAw_XVt4aMEgGd_KyEPC

 

[Eighths-n-Aces]

ROLMMFAO!!!! Rammstein rocks and all but .........

I'm going to guess that they don't understand a whole lot of german in southflorida!

maybe you should have watched this version first .....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkdEACAwQTE

and if you do understand german ........ i'm not real sure i want to know WTF object or subject you have stuck in your reality at the moment




sorry ...... i couldn't let that go to waste. it was to perfect

 

[southflorida]

ROLMMFAO!!!! Rammstein rocks and all but .........

I'm going to guess that they don't understand a whole lot of german in southflorida!

maybe you should have watched this version first .....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkdEACAwQTE

and if you do understand german ........ i'm not real sure i want to know WTF object or subject you have stuck in your reality at the moment


sorry ...... i couldn't let that go to waste. it was to perfect

this is a very interesting post

rammstein is my favorite rock band precisely because I don't understand what they are singing

meaning is NOT important to me

 

[Eighths-n-Aces]

tell that to the gerbil

 

[southflorida]

tell that to the gerbil

 

[HempKat]

Yeah, of course it is not that long, I was just trying to point out that during those five days a few important distinctions have been made by the members posting here. The most important is the distinction between primary and secondary reality being more correct, than using objective and subjective, since objective and subjective both occur in the secondary reality, while the primary reality is not-known.



I am writing about my own personal direct experiences and obviously there is no way for me to prove them to anyone. My point is NOT to convince anyone, even though my writing style may lean toward this, but to share my experiences in order to point at the possibility that others might be able to experience it also.

But, if someone does or not, in my own personal experiences, the nature of reality has been made directly conscious, and this occured as a direct consciousness, and not an interpretation using perception and the intellect.



I can't prove my own conscious experience, no one can. In the world we share we can only speak in relative terms, we cannot communicate about absolute truths.

Whatever we communicate, it will always refer or point toward the truth or anything else for that matter, it will never be the truth.

And actually, I have said it many times that this whole pursuit is meaningless, because meaning is derived through perception and interpretation, it is never INHERENT in anything.

What does life mean? What does existence mean? What does an apple mean?

They are absolutely meaningless, unless we use perception and interpretation and PROVIDE them with meaning.

An apple is simple BEING an apple, it has no meaning.

It exists for-itself and as-itself.

Our perception and interpretation takes what IS there and adds meaning by asking - what does this object MEAN TO ME?

So, meaning is always added to what is actually THERE.

When we add meaning, we call it an apple, it becomes a fruit that can be eaten, thrown away when spoiled, or can be used to play catch, or for many other uses.

All of these MEANINGS will be what the apple means for-us, NOT for-itself and as-itself.

For-itself and as-itself it is simply what it IS.

This may sound kind of stupid, but it is how it is.

The truth doesn't have to sound like anything, it has to simply be true.



I want to point out that you keep referring to the second reality, which is based on perception, interpretation, and meaning, which are all secondary processes that our senses and intellect (mind) provide us with.

The primary reality is first, it is WHAT IS perceived and interpreted, it is NOT the interpretation of the IN-DIRECT perception.

This whole thread was started on the FACT that our senses are in-direct and that we have NO WAY of perceiving the primary reality.

Scientists have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that our senses are indirect and have very strong proof that everything is made from atoms. This alone shows that what we are perceiving IS not what is actually there.

...I'm not saying there are atoms there...btw...I'm saying what is there is not-known.

Obviously scientists don't go deep into explaining what this actually means that our senses are in-direct because most people would really freak out if the scientists came straight out and said it. But, I'm saying what it means, and many are having a difficulty with it.

Imagine what would happen if the masses were told this in a way that they couldn't ignore it. There would be some sh*t hitting the ceilings



What's wrong with the answer that it is not-known?

Not-knowing is what is true, it is what is authentic, original, and is what always exists before ANY knowing occurs.

But, even when knowing occurs through conceptual processes like perception, interpretation, and meaning, the NOT-KNOWING does not actually disappear anywhere.

Not-knowing is simply what always IS.

This is a hard thing to accept because in our culture not-knowing is considered a bad thing, and we don't want to appear as if we don't know because people might think of us as stupid or ignorant or whatever.

But, this is ridiculous, because not-knowing is an authentic state of being a human.

We don't know 99.9999999999999% of everything there is to know, and for some reason we try to live as if it's actually the other way around.

Why? What's wrong with simply not-knowing? Not having beliefs and assumption? Why do we need to believe and assume in the first place?

Isn't it because we FEAR not-knowing? Where does this fear come from? Isn't it from society and culture?



This is a good distinction, about the tertiary reality, which shows that our conceptual processing is like a snowball, and on top of perception and interpretation we add more perception and interpretation, and in the end we get lost in this whole muddy puddle of concepts.

My viewpoint is it is more beneficial and more authentic to move toward having NO CONCEPTS, no beliefs, no assumptions, instead of piling all the made-up inventions of the mind on something that is already TRUE.



Our perceptions and intellect have been designed (evolved is a better word probably) for one reason and one reason only.

SELF-SURVIVAL.

This can be easily observed, if one actually observes it without bias, in the FACT that every perception that we have, we interpret it, and the mind provides us with an emotional charge in relation to what we are perceiving and interpreting.

This IS what I'm calling an effect. We are affected by absolutely everything in our experience, because we are living in a charged field, and this whole field exists ONLY because we are in a state of constant self-survival.

There is NOTHING outside of this, because that is WHAT our perceptions are FOR.

Obviously there are different levels of these emotional charges, these effects, some may not even register in our awareness, but if they register or not, if you pay attention you will see that every perception affects us, without exception.

This is because our self-mind is a survival tool, it interprets ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that shows up in its field of awareness and it interprets everything through the question WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME?

You can see it by simply looking at objects in your current experience and looking at different colors, everything will produce a different effect because the self-mind is in a state of self-survival and has to interpret and provide you with a charge in order to let you know HOW TO RELATE to any circumstance.

That example above, with the person seeing a green building and saying it's blue is a perfect example of self-survival.

He does not have to see it AS blue, this is NOT what I'm saying happens, he sees it as green, but says he sees it as blue in order to survive as a self-identity in the society where he lives.

For him fitting in is a part of this self-survival, and he will say it's blue even if he perceives it as green.

This is called misrepresentation, or simply lying, and it is something that happens A LOT because we view self-survival as MUCH more important than the truth.

In fact, self-survival IS the only thing that is important, and everything we do and are in this SECONDARY REALITY relates to this self-survival process.

We are in a state of surviving as the "self" that we believe and assume that we ARE. Everything that is identified AS the "self" will be promoted, protected, and more will be created on top of this, because the "self" is a snowball of concepts that NEVER stops growing.

I can agree with much of what you say but I disagree with the absoluteness you apply to it yes a lot of what we perceive about the world around us pertains to self survival but it's also about survival of reality. Like the apple example, yes when one looks at an apple they may see food or something to play with but that doesn't mean that that's all it is or becomes. An apple isn't just is, it does have meaning and purpose as a means to propagate the life of the parent plant. We are starting to learn now that plants may actually have a level of intelligence we've previously not noticed because it moves in plant time which is too slow for us to notice in real time. It's only as we've learned to step back and look at the bigger picture that we've begun to notice what we missed before. In time we may even discover that some plants evolved their "fruit" the way they did to attract humans and be food for humans so that in turn humans could help insure the plant reproduces and survives.

In other words all reality is interconnected and needs it's various elements, even us to survive. You may look at an apple and other fruits and vegetables as just being food or objects you can do other things with but in the bigger picture it's plants are also homes for other things, it's roots help strengthen the soil, the way the overall plant operates also influences weather patterns and so on.

One of the big mistakes we keep overlooking in trying to understand climate change is how we've failed to live in balance with the environment because those of us that do think solely of self have destroyed too much of things like rainforests in trying to satisfy our more immediate personal survival. So we've taken out a lot of that which helps clean out the greenhouse gases and replaces it with oxygen and in wiping out vast sections of rainforest we've changed weather patterns that also contribute to the climate change we're experiencing. Many have been warning of the perils of this activity since well before we started to really even be aware of global warming, because they do see the bigger picture and understand that it's not just "what does this mean to me?" but also "what does this and us mean to everything else including itself?"

 

[Peter Parker]

Man, you guys have some super deep stuff in this thread. I'll definitely keep up.

 

[[]310TEC[]]

nice topic... i feel the spirtually message of this thread

i do not read all postings in this thread (to much stuff)
but the first post

i feel a deep energy in the world and in my own life
that is very important to feel yourself and to know what we realy are...

only energy! (from mother nature) fau:

life is a beautiful (real) dream - you can make all this things
in a raster of rules - garvitation ... or ??? smelling, watching or movement on the big place earth

"the game" it is, to find the truth
this truth we can only find in our death
*shock*

many people are scared by the death
i am happy about

this is the end... and the begin... it likes a restart...
(maybe?)

i hope, sometime, i can find all answers of my
endless questions about this great amazing world

the answer is coming soon

*broken english*
:

POSTSKRIPT:
buddhism is a great knowledge
you can learn a lot from this awesome religion
OM!

 

[southflorida]

I can agree with much of what you say but I disagree with the absoluteness you apply to it

yes, HK, there are always exceptions to everything, and absolute truths are without a doubt outside of our ability to communicate.

the "survival" that I'm talking about in this thread, is NOT the regular survival that we usually think about when this word is mentioned, there is really no word that can exactly describe this self-survival-process.

self-survival includes creating, maintaining, and promoting the "self" that we believe and assume ourselves to "be."

what is important to grasp is that it is NOT a choice, but a drive.

all of our perceptions and all of our interpretation abilities are built around this self-survival principle. Whatever we identify as the "self" in our awareness and whatever we are attached to conceptually as a "self" is what our mind works on creating, maintaining, and promoting. This is all self-survival, and it is basically all we do.

We can step outside of this self-survival-principle by observing our perceptions from the "for-itself" point of view, and this will definitely stop the effects from all the interpretations that our mind is making on a moment-to-moment basis in relation to everything that we perceive, but this is hard work, and won't have the support of the self-mind because it can't do its job of interpreting everything our senses perceive and dividing these perceptions into dangerous or not-dangerous for-us emotional orientations.

This division fundamentally includes many different positive/negative charges, and this is how our self-mind actually pushes us toward self-survival.

If we view anything in our perception for-itself, this will occur BEFORE our mind makes the interpretation and performs the division of whatever our senses perceive into something that is negative or positive in relation to our "self."

But, this will obviously seem "useless" and "meaningless" to our mind since there is no value in it, plus it will be "itching" to make the interpretation of what your senses just perceived since that is what the mind has been designed for.

This self-survival drive is NOT something that happens once in a while, it is happening ALWAYS, because the self-mind is always working away, interpreting all our perceptions on a moment-to-moment basis and providing us with the meaning of what all of this means "for-me?"

yes a lot of what we perceive about the world around us pertains to self survival but it's also about survival of reality. Like the apple example, yes when one looks at an apple they may see food or something to play with but that doesn't mean that that's all it is or becomes. An apple isn't just is, it does have meaning and purpose as a means to propagate the life of the parent plant.

yes, of course, it has meaning for us, for the plant itself, and for everything that the apple interacts with while it's being an apple.

But, fundamentally, without relating to something else, in other words, simply for-itself, the apple is simply an apple, it is without meaning and value, because meaning and value are always added to something, they are never what something IS, as-itself and for-itself.

Meaning and value are secondary, the apple as-itself is primary.

We are starting to learn now that plants may actually have a level of intelligence we've previously not noticed because it moves in plant time which is too slow for us to notice in real time. It's only as we've learned to step back and look at the bigger picture that we've begun to notice what we missed before. In time we may even discover that some plants evolved their "fruit" the way they did to attract humans and be food for humans so that in turn humans could help insure the plant reproduces and survives.

In other words all reality is interconnected and needs it's various elements, even us to survive. You may look at an apple and other fruits and vegetables as just being food or objects you can do other things with but in the bigger picture it's plants are also homes for other things, it's roots help strengthen the soil, the way the overall plant operates also influences weather patterns and so on.

We are very interconnected, which points at all of us being elements of one structure, and it is very interesting to observe how nature evolves and grows through optimum mutual benefit for all that are involved.

As humans, most of the time we ignore the fact that we are a part of this nature, for some reason we believe and assume that we are somehow separated from it. Not all obviously, but many.

This can be seen at how we treat nature on a global scale.

One of the big mistakes we keep overlooking in trying to understand climate change is how we've failed to live in balance with the environment because those of us that do think solely of self have destroyed too much of things like rainforests in trying to satisfy our more immediate personal survival. So we've taken out a lot of that which helps clean out the greenhouse gases and replaces it with oxygen and in wiping out vast sections of rainforest we've changed weather patterns that also contribute to the climate change we're experiencing. Many have been warning of the perils of this activity since well before we started to really even be aware of global warming, because they do see the bigger picture and understand that it's not just "what does this mean to me?" but also "what does this and us mean to everything else including itself?"

Yes, this point of view "for-me" has done a lot of damage.

Mutually beneficial interaction and co-operation between sentient beings, or what we call "true love" is something that we are evolving toward. But, this is occuring slowly.

 

[southflorida]

nice topic... i feel the spirtually message of this thread

i do not read all postings in this thread (to much stuff)
but the first post

i feel a deep energy in the world and in my own life
that is very important to feel yourself and to know what we realy are...

only energy! (from mother nature)

life is a beautiful (real) dream - you can make all this things
in a raster of rules - garvitation ... or ??? smelling, watching or movement on the big place earth

"the game" it is, to find the truth
this truth we can only find in our death
*shock*

many people are scared by the death
i am happy about

this is the end... and the begin... it likes a restart...
(maybe?)

i hope, sometime, i can find all answers of my
endless questions about this great amazing world

the answer is coming soon

*broken english*
:

POSTSKRIPT:
buddhism is a great knowledge
you can learn a lot from this awesome religion
OM!

welcome to this thread 310 TEC, and thanks for your post

 

[bombadil.360]

southflorida,

a quick question:

you talked about the process of assembling the secondary world through the senses as something that has been designed as such: designed by whom and why?

peace

 

[southflorida]

southflorida,

a quick question:

you talked about the process of assembling the secondary world through the senses as something that has been designed as such: designed by whom and why?

peace

If everything is Consciousness, it is us and we are it, then it is Consciousness designing everything.

It actually all occurs through evolution.

Consciousness + Evolution = Father and Mother of all secondary realities, that are evolving realities.

 

[BullDogUK]

I think you might have it a bit wrong there.

The secondary reality is a subset of the primary, that is it exists within it; the primary can exist without the secondary but that the secondary reality could not exist outside of the primary (as far as we know). Due to this we can only assume that the secondary is a product of the primary; some element within the primary must be a basis from which the secondary comes.

I'm not sure how relevant it is, but I always found facts like it when discussing things like this:

The wavelengths of light to which our photo-receptors are sensitive covers less than 1% of the total spectrum. This is not to say that these other wavelengths are not present or any less common however. We are constantly surrounded and subject to a practically infinite amount of electromagnetic radiation, 1% of which is enough to create everything we see, know and base our consciousness on. Whether or not that is an illusion is immaterial once you consider what a tiny proportion of actual reality it is.