|
Post by whistler on Jul 15, 2008 7:19:55 GMT
Reality is an impossibility. Objective reality and subjective reality are only realities to the perceivers. I am sure my realities are different to Tamrin, and to those of Russell and so they should be we are all viewing from different places.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 15, 2008 8:31:56 GMT
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 15, 2008 9:22:21 GMT
I suggest Bro. Whistler needs to discover the meaning the term, 'objective reality.'
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 15, 2008 9:59:05 GMT
>Objective reality and subjective reality are only realities to the perceivers.
Long ago I bought a bronze buddha head (Kwan Yin) - about half life size - and she seemed to bless it for me. I used to have it in the meditation area. One day during the meditation I was looking inwardly around and noticing the somewhat vague figures of various beings in the vicinity when I had the thought to put the buddha head upon mine.
When I did that I could see new set of vague figures with the former set no longer seen. When I took off the head, the original figures reappeared.
It reminded me of reading that the Earth is inhabited by some species that have no interaction with humans - the life forms pass through each other without interaction.
Was I seeing another reality?
I still have the buddha head and it still works
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 15, 2008 10:16:51 GMT
I suggest you use logic, or at least a dictionary. IF what you say is true then it was objectively true. That others' subjective perception did not corroborate that reality would not lessen its objectivity... If, on the other hand, it was not true... Well
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jul 15, 2008 11:52:44 GMT
Bro Russell, the old expression about "casting pearls before swine" comes to my mind.
You have seen what you have seen, it is not for others to say you nay. I am reminded of Our Lord's words to Thomas, "Thou hast seen and believed, blessed are they that have not seen but still believeth".
Once everything is reduced to 0 and 1 as in Digital Circuitry then the world will indeed have grown grey and no amount of silly pictures posted will lighten its darkness.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 15, 2008 13:39:50 GMT
You have seen what you have seen, it is not for others to say you nay. I am reminded of Our Lord's words to Thomas, "Thou hast seen and believed, blessed are they that have not seen but still believeth". Indeed, I would, for instance, require more than mere assertion to believe ours is one of seven solar systems orbiting Alcyone (contrary to astronomical observations), as Bro. Russell has claimed.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jul 15, 2008 18:34:40 GMT
Reality is an impossibility. Objective reality and subjective reality are only realities to the perceivers. I am sure my realities are different to Tamrin, and to those of Russell and so they should be we are all viewing from different places. "Reality" is not an impossibility; it is a "concept" and therefore "symbolic" of a preceived "probability."It reminded me of reading that the Earth is inhabited by some species that have no interaction with humans - the life forms pass through each other without interaction. Good stuff Prometheus. ;D Now if instead of ""I Imagine some Aussies are a funny lot" I say "I think some Aussies are a funny lot" or "I Know Aussies are a funny lot" am I changing the the ownership of the reality Therefore, I reject your reality and substitute it with mine own. This subjective action shall do until I must find a more elaborate denial system that supports my perception. ;D
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jul 15, 2008 19:19:14 GMT
Reality is an impossibility. Objective reality and subjective reality are only realities to the perceivers. I am sure my realities are different to Tamrin, and to those of Russell and so they should be we are all viewing from different places. "In metaphysics, “subjectivism” is the view that reality (the “object”) is dependent on human consciousness (the “subject”). In epistemology, as a result, subjectivists hold that a man need not concern himself with the facts of reality; instead, to arrive at knowledge or truth, he need merely turn his attention inward, consulting the appropriate contents of consciousness, the ones with the power to make reality conform to their dictates. According to the most widespread form of subjectivism, the elements which possess this power are feelings. In essence, subjectivism is the doctrine that feelings are the creator of facts, and therefore men’s primary tool of cognition. If men feel it, declares the subjectivist, that makes it so. The alternative to subjectivism is the advocacy of objectivity—an attitude which rests on the view that reality exists independent of human consciousness; that the role of the subject is not to create the object, but to perceive it; and that knowledge of reality can be acquired only by directing one’s attention outward to the facts." Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 62.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 15, 2008 22:24:57 GMT
I am not sure that the above is a particularly objective account of subjectivism
But on a more fundamental level I suggest that physical objects are held in existence with stable properties only because elemental intelligences hold them there.
If so, then the physical object may change properties on occasion. Hence recurrent accounts of passing through walls and walking on water
I used to use intent to change the properties of metal. I would be working on a piece (making a key or a fitting) and I would get the thought - the metal will break - and it would a few seconds later
Eventually I discovered that when I had that thought I should intend that the metal would not break and it would not. This allowed me to be much more productive - particularly in terminating work-hardened pyrotenax.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jul 16, 2008 5:00:28 GMT
Russell I really enjoy the worthwhile concepts you bring forth Ref It reminded me of reading that the Earth is inhabited by some species that have no interaction with humans - the life forms pass through each other without interaction.I guess ( Not Imagine ) why not. If everything is happening at the same time the grid of events is infinite. I would love to have been with you when you were working with the Buddha Head were the figures you saw in both dimensions in light form, or did they have another out line. Have you tried the same with another icon/ object
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 16, 2008 5:15:10 GMT
>were the figures you saw in both dimensions in light form, or did they have another out line.
If I am not in a meditation the figures are vague shapes as in a fog - I may see the shape and be aware of its attention and/or intention. In a group meditation the colours and forms can be quite splendid and detailed - probably because the group light body is the vehicle of perception.
The figures are similar with and without the head although the light is less intense with the head. (That may either be that there is less light or that the light is higher frequency and harder to see. I might investigate)
>Have you tried the same with another icon/ object
I have just tried it with some other buddhas I have and they do not work. I was quite aware of the process of blessing the bronze Kwan Yin as I was closely involved.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jul 16, 2008 5:38:40 GMT
I am not sure that the above is a particularly objective account of subjectivism What? It is a very precise definition.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 16, 2008 8:24:40 GMT
I am not sure that the above is a particularly objective account of subjectivism What?
It is a very precise definition.Indeed it is: Thank you for sharing. Subjective perceptions which are baseless tend to fare poorly when they conflict with objective reality. Indeed, I hope that when driving, the subjective perceptions of other drivers share a similar approximation to mine in relation to the objective reality in which we are all involved.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jul 16, 2008 16:21:37 GMT
Not tactile sensations, but rather ones inward preceptions. The subjectivist, rather than taking reality as concrete, would obseve a situation and then identify it based on how he precieves it based on his emotional response.
A perfect example wpould be those who "feel" that we are in for catosrophic climate change due to global warming, despite evidence to the contrary. Or those who believe we can appease terrorists by kow-towing to thier surface demands, rather than facing the fact that they have declared a Holy War on the West.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jul 16, 2008 18:39:39 GMT
Not tactile sensations, but rather ones inward preceptions. The subjectivist, rather than taking reality as concrete, would obseve a situation and then identify it based on how he precieves it based on his emotional response. A perfect example wpould be those who "feel" that we are in for catosrophic climate change due to global warming, despite evidence to the contrary. Or those who believe we can appease terrorists by kow-towing to thier surface demands, rather than facing the fact that they have declared a Holy War on the West. Okay. Then all they are saying is "perception IS reality" and darn the facts. Precisely.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 16, 2008 22:08:10 GMT
>Then all they are saying is "perception IS reality" and darn the facts.
I wonder if any subjectivists would say that.
Or is it what objectivists like to say about subjectivists?
How would a subjectivist deal with a government statement about the existence of weapons of mass destruction?
How would an objectivist deal with the same statement?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 16, 2008 22:21:44 GMT
>Then all they are saying is "perception IS reality" and darn the facts.
I wonder if any subjectivists would say that. Subjective perceptions which are baseless tend to fare poorly when they conflict with objective reality. Indeed, I hope that when driving, the subjective perceptions of other drivers share a similar approximation to mine in relation to the objective reality in which we are all involved.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 16, 2008 22:41:37 GMT
I am not sure that reasserting the objectivist view really answers the question of what a subjectivist would say.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 16, 2008 22:43:46 GMT
I am not sure that reasserting the objectivist view really answers the question of what a subjectivist would say. I was not merely reasserting the objectivist view, I was raising the scenario of subjectivist drivers sharing the road!?
|
|