|
Post by wayseer on Mar 1, 2007 6:42:28 GMT
Matt writes -
Tamrin/Wayseer, it pleases me to think these things ... just humour the old girl...
That's OK - but I note no one thus far has had a tilt at my question - Who is it that constructs reality?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 1, 2007 7:28:25 GMT
Bro. WayseerWho is it that constructs reality? I expect you are already familiar with Berger & Luckman's, Social Construction of Reality. The Wikipedia entry states: The work introduced the term social construction into the social sciences. The central concept of The Social Construction of Reality is that persons and groups interacting together in a social system form, over time, concepts or mental representations of each other's actions, and that these concepts eventually become habituated into reciprocal roles played by the actors in relation to each other. When these roles are made available to other members of society to enter into and play out, the reciprocal interactions are said to be institutionalised. In the process of this institutionalisation, meaning is embedded in society. Knowledge and people's conception (and belief) of what reality is becomes embedded in the institutional fabric of society. Social reality is therefore said to be socially constructed. This does not wholly answer your question. There is also an objective reality whereby, whatever everyone thinks, get it wrong and one suffers the consequences (or reaps an unexpected bounty). An example I have heard is that of a farm where the chickens 'know' that, as surely as the sun will rise each day (?!), the farmer will come and feed them, water them, and generally tend to their welfare—Surely he is beneficent, with their best interests at heart: He 'loves' chickens and they believe him to be a veritable chicken guardian angel. Then one day he enters their coop, they flock to him, he gathers them up and, one by one, he chops their heads off.
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 1, 2007 7:48:16 GMT
We all have comfort zones. Often these are based on what we believe. And when something comes along and challenges our comfort zones, we often react defensively, instead of constructively seeking the truth. It is easier. But when you can reach past beyond belief into knowledge it becomes heaps easier, as you realise that the more you know, the less you know, so you want to know, while being happy to know. If that makes any sort of sense.
Let me share how I became interested in ufos.
Imagine me, knowing nothing much about ufos. Sitting in the pub having a beer with a friend. The pub was quiet and we were in a recessed bit. The beer was good, but we were only on our first pint. He was, and is, a family man, in a good job at the time with a very well known multinational, and not exactly at the entry level.
My friend (hi if you are reading this hope that you don't feel too uncomfy) was talking about this and that as you do. Then I mentioned something about ufos that I had come across and asked if he knew anything about it...
Well, blow me over. His face changed. His muscles tightened, he went a bit sweaty and he began to stutter a little, and he concentrated on every single word that he then spoke, while clear trying hard to hold back the tears as he relived a moment in his life.
In essence as a teenager, he, his girlfriend, and others, who happened to be walking through a park were abducted by a ufo. He remembers it in detail, his girlfriend did not. Both had severe sunburn down one side of the face and hands after the incident. That alone is interesting as it was dark and snow was on the ground. Catholic background, police, priest etc called, various visits from various authorities.
I did not know what to say or do as I sat there speechless. I wanted to help him but did not know how. So I began to research and learn about the subject of alien abductions. I soon discovered how common the phenomenon (whatever it is) actually is. Much much more common than most people realise, or will admit to.
I fully accept that there is a lot of nonsense, a lot of misunderstanding and misinterpretation, but there is also heaps of proof, if you dig about. But to accept some of the proof you must be willing to have your beliefs challenged.
As I alluded to earlier, if a policeman says that he saw a murder being committed, you would generally believe him, so why (philosophically) disbelieve him if he says he witnessed an abduction? Especially when there could be physical, testable, evidence. (marks on skin, witnesses, fellow abductees, etc).
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 1, 2007 8:02:42 GMT
Bro. Stewart wrote,As I alluded to earlier, if a policeman says that he saw a murder being committed, you would generally believe him, so why (philosophically) disbelieve him if he says he witnessed an abduction? Especially when there could be physical, testable, evidence. (marks on skin, witnesses, fellow abductees, etc). What I would chiefly doubt is the linking of such an account to a particular belief in aliens (or unicorns).
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 1, 2007 8:09:10 GMT
Why?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 1, 2007 8:12:55 GMT
Because such an interpretation takes one beyond the given evidence into the realms of theory-dependent belief systems.
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 1, 2007 8:20:13 GMT
Ok, as best as I can remember the case of Travis Walton (he wrote a book about it and a film has been made).
He was abducted and remembers the aliens, physical exams, inside the craft etc, all the details. His friends all saw the abduction.
They were charged with his murder and all had to take lie detector tests - all but one passed, the one that didn't was inconclusive. Then when Travis returned, he was tested, and his friends retested - all this time were shown to have truthfully passed the test. Remember in America these tests are used in courts as accepted evidince.
So why belive that the true answer is anything else?
Before the event none of them belived in aliens or abductions. They just went on what actually happened.
It is the same time and time again.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 1, 2007 11:20:09 GMT
The case of Travis Walton is not as straight forward as Stewart presents it. Also where does the notion of extra-terrestrials come in? Why not say they were, for instance, from Agartha (Middle Earth)? While I do not suggest this possibility is likely, I do suggest it is more credible than alien contact (we do not need to know the right answer).
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 1, 2007 11:50:54 GMT
Philip
There is certainly a lot of comment around about technologies used to delete or replace real memories particularly in abductees. And some accounts from abductees seem to indicate that an alien cover story may be implanted to obscure human activities.
This is difficult for the individual to deal with unless they can control their own level of consciousness. And even then, use of common drugs such as anesthetics can render people unable to visualise effectively for weeks.
The only ways around this that I know are:
- external intervention such as spiritual healing - access beyond the subplanes to the electricities which allow distinction to be made between a constructed and a natural inner experience
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 1, 2007 23:16:45 GMT
but I note no one thus far has had a tilt at my question - Who is it that constructs reality? I think we each construct our own reality. If I think it, feel it, sense it, see it - that is MY reality. Those voices in the heads of mental patients are reality for THEM. Those voices (God's) in the heads of the various prophets and saints were real for them, and in their case we honour them by the way (one is in a mental home and one is on a pedestal. One man's meat is another man's poison.) The individual family creates their reality. The family thinks Grandma is an old pain in the butt and a nuisance. Grandma cannot understand why the family are so uncaring, she sacrificed all for them. Both situations can be real and different at the same time. You can take this reality exercise up a level at a time and see that probably that there is, at our level of observation, no one definite Reality. What is real - the body that we see or the nothing that is there when it is put under a super microscope? Masonically, if we are Hiram, then we are the builders of our own reality - and if you take that analogy to its end you will see how we can overcome the obstacles that we place between Here and There Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 1, 2007 23:50:21 GMT
Bro. Russell wroteAnd some accounts from abductees seem to indicate that an alien cover story may be implanted to obscure human activities. Given the possibility of Recovered / Implanted Memory Syndrome, I would be as hesitant to assume the likelihood of abuse in such cases as I would be to accept the introduction of extra-terrestrial assumptions. We cannot unveil every mystery and yet it is a common fallacy to accept any explanation simply because we have no other. For instance, the saying that the moon is made of green (new) cheese may have been first uttered to demonstrate the error of that fallacy. Perhaps we just have to learn to live with some mysteries without feeling compelled to explain them. Saying "I don't know" is sometime the right answer.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 2, 2007 3:10:22 GMT
>Saying "I don't know" is sometime the right answer.
Quite so. Recognition of ignorance allows the first deliberate steps to knowledge
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2007 6:01:31 GMT
>Saying "I don't know" is sometime the right answer. Quite so. Recognition of ignorance allows the first deliberate steps to knowledge Cheers Russell If you mean deliberate steps to knowledge explaining a particular mystery, I suggest you are missing my point—which was to accept some mysteries as such and to move on, without any expectation of, or need for, an explanation. However, this is not to say that subsequent experiences may not throw some light on those mysteries (if only to deepen our appreciation of them). As Joseph Campbell wrote ( Myths to Live By, p.130): There is a favorite story, frequently told by Zen masters, of the Buddha, preaching: of how he held up a single lotus, that simple gesture being his whole sermon. Only one member of his audience, however, caught the message, a monk named Kasyapa, who is regarded now as the founder of the Zen sect. And the Buddha noticing, gave him a knowing nod, then preached a verbal sermon for the rest: a sermon for those who required meaning, still entrapped in the net of ideas; yet pointing beyond, to escape from the net and the way that some of them, one day or another, might find.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 2, 2007 6:28:11 GMT
Maat writes -
I think we each construct our own reality.
Quite so - but yet another question arises - how do we do that - construct own reality?
You have alluded to your method - personal experience. However, and generally, such a method is highly questionable. All of this can be debated at an intellectual and academic level - but in doing so such a process itself is inscribed within a given paradigm - there are only certain ways of thinking that will satisfy while others are sanctioned - and as Tamrin has already indicated - often we have to settle for the I don't know result.
Which all can become rather frustrating.
And it is at this point that one might become alive to a sense of loss - that we are still missing vital pieces in the jigsaw. Yet we give credance to that loss through symbol, narrative, myth and ritual - in our pauperdom and impoverishment that is all we have.
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 2, 2007 7:28:56 GMT
Fortunately what is lost can also be found.
There may be lots in life that I don't know, but I do know that you can find what is lost.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 2, 2007 7:34:10 GMT
>I think we each construct our own reality.
I recall a woman (a co-mason) who was invoking a lot of Christ energies. The energies appeared to me to produce an image of a Christ figure on the outer edge of her aura. On seeing the figure there constantly she eventually decided that she herself was Jesus the Christ and identified those around her accordingly. I was apparently Joseph. But I think that was not correct because an Austrian who thought he was Jesus identified me as Judas.
But as the woman was being a bit difficult in the lodge I decided to burst her energy bubble by letting excess energy out of her aura. At that point she no longer could see the Christ figure and became inactive. But after a few days she had rebuilt the energy bubble and again could see the Christ figure and once again was a problem
So I left her to it
So that is one way to build a reality - invoke energies and then identify with them
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2007 7:52:56 GMT
Bro. Wayseer wrote: And it is at this point that one might become alive to a sense of loss - that we are still missing vital pieces in the jigsaw. Yet we give credance to that loss through symbol, narrative, myth and ritual - in our pauperdom and impoverishment that is all we have. Indeed, though one might crave steak, there are only sausages to be had—Get used to it! By this, I am using the old analogy of the mind as a sausage machine, in which the noumenon, or thing itself (the steak), is processed by the mind to produce phenomenon, or that which we perceive (the sausage meat), each wrapped in contrived preconceptions and categories (the sausage skins). With the product (the sausages) being dependant on the thing itself together with the nature of our minds, our perceptions and our preconceptions. All is not, however, hopeless. We still manage to communicate and reach some degree of agreement. As Max Born stated: One person cannot convey the concept of red, but two people can agree (on the colour).
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2007 8:01:23 GMT
Fortunately what is lost can also be found. There may be lots in life that I don't know, but I do know that you can find what is lost. Some things we search for have not been lost—We never had them in the first place—Many are not even within the reach of our intellectual cabletows and perhaps some simply do not exist.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 2, 2007 8:21:54 GMT
>not even within the reach of our intellectual cabletows
I wonder if the human has higher levels of function than the intellect.
If so, then using those functions may allow us to access much more
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2007 8:31:55 GMT
>not even within the reach of our intellectual cabletows I wonder if the human has higher levels of function than the intellect. If so, then using those functions may allow us to access much more Cheers Russell True, but I suggest that at those higher level we may not feel compelled to satify our vain intellects.
|
|