Levels of reality

[Thief]

It seems the participants are flip-flopping in and out a dream state.
As if trying to wake up and see reality.
As if to escape a bad dream.

I will run with that......

Many contend this reality is an illusion.
For this post ...I say....so be it.

You will die.
You will stand from your dust.
What ever is standing over you in that hour is your .....fate.

They will have the advantage.
They will know the territory, the language and the scheme of things.

You don't get to wake up a second time.

 

[Windwalker]

While I think it's useful to disentangle "chair" in all its conceptual and even symbolic richness from its usage as a simple sign ("that chair"), I think it's wrong to say that apart from the subject the chair is nothing. It is true of "chair" as concept and as symbol, but not entirely true of "chair" as a sign that refers to the concrete and distinguishable part of reality that we can otherwise recognize (again conceptually) as atoms, molecules, wood, or etc.

If you take a step back further, as I suggested in my post, to the atom's point of view, does the chair exist? Does an atom see molecules of which is it a part? In order to see molecules, an atom has to take a perspective above itself, and above molecules. So since a chair is an collection of atoms and molecules, in order for that object we humans call a chair to exit, it has to assume a perspective above atoms, and molecules, and situate itself in the perceptive level of a sentient being. It obviously is incapable of doing do at it's plane of reality, and therefore the chair does not exist in the atom world.

So I ask again, does this object "chair" exist absolutely, or only in relative planes of existence? I'll answer this question cutting to the chase. All relative realities only exist 'objectively' from the perspective of God. It requires taking all perspectives, and privileging none. To say the chair continues to exist as an object in time and space assume an human perception of reality as that of absolute truth. It imagines its own perspective as reflective of all reality, much they way it imagined Earth and its inhabitants the center of the universe. We have a tendency to think like this, and continue to do so in this area too out of habit, completely unawares to ourselves.

I'll toss in an analogy I came up with some years ago. I liken Reality, in the absolute sense, to an infinite seamless cloth upon with are embroidered various patterns, all unique and standing out as individual islands of patterns, made of various colors, stitchings, and materials. And as these little 'island worlds', awaken, they look and see other islands sewn into this fabric they are unaware of, seeing only patterns which bearing familiarity to their own patterns of which they are made. The wave at each other, "Hi!", they inquire and learn from each other about their worlds, learning about their own. And on and on this goes, interacting with the other islands creating a meta-reality amongst themselves of shared realities which becomes a cohesive uniting fabric of their own creations that they become a part of and becomes a part of themselves.

But then a few rare isolated individual islands begins to see glimpses of the illusory nature of this meta-reality created by the groups of islands, and they feel a pull to see beyond the clouds in these metaphorical skies they live underneath. They sit in silence, listening to the Deep, and they sink beneath the stitchings they are made out of, and see above the clouds the islands created in the skies above their heads, and they see a vast Ocean above and below everything that exists, seeing everything that exists is simply patterns of materials all created out of and onto an endless fabric. Then they realize that they themselves are that fabric in themselves, seeing other island patterns through their own pattern's eyes, and that they themselves are seeing themselves in others as that seamless cloth looking through and shining out to itself through these other island realities. Of course when they declare this to other islands, this deep realization they have had, they are scoffed at and rejected because it does not fit the others self-created realities. But when they encounter others who have seen the Deep, they recognize that Light that shines from their eyes through their own Self-realizing.

Now my point is, that which I just described also "objectively" exists. But can one who has never seen beyond their own world know it? Does a molecule exist to an atom? Does a chair exist to molecules? Does this Seamless Cloth exist to one who only who has only seen the world defined by the parameters of their own culture and language and desire for a cohesive structure of reality they can find themselves within? They may attempt to conceptualize it, and at best it becomes a glimmer of that Reality, but as such, as a belief, it becomes an idea "cloud" which defines the skies above their heads. They have not stepped beyond the cloud of belief and into that lived Reality, and so that is not their reality. They have not seen the world through the eyes of God, and therefore they see reality through the relative eyes of a human, where the chair exist "objectively" independent of themselves. From God's point of view, this reality of ours, both exists and does not exist.

A "chair" as representation in the mind of a person, or a chipmunk, or even a centipede to whatever extent that is possible, does not exist apart from the subjectivity that is connected to representation, but the point of saying that there is something, referred to by the word "chair", which is objectively real, is in saying that it does not subsist entirely in us.

Again, to repeat, I am not saying it exists only in our mind. I am saying that it requires our mind to see that "something". Therefore, it does not exist absolutely. The chair only exists to those who can see it. Just as there are realities beyond us that don't exist "objectively" to those who cannot see it. "Where's your evidence? Show me your evidence so that I may believe!", is a betrayal of one's own inability to see what exists before them. One does not "believe in" reality, one perceives it. As Emerson said so utterly perfectly, "What we are, that only can we see".

Reality is only seen when the subject sees. It does not exist to them, until their eyes are opened. And even then, what is seen, but simply a new perception of an infinite unfolding of Ultimate Reality. And as such, since it require the one seeing, it is not "objective reality", just laying around out there at the end of the path of our knowing, but is in reality a Subject/Object dance. We are interpreters, not of a chair, but of form. Forms of strings, forms of atoms. What are forms? Can you define them? It's a very, very strange reality that we as humans think we can discover if we look hard enough "out there" through the eyes of the Self seeing. Reality is not static. Is far, far, beyond anything our human minds think we can wrap our understanding around by studying a rock!

Its reality transcends our subjectivity, even if we can have no possible awareness of it apart from our own subjectivity, conditioned as that awareness is by our concepts and modes of perception.

Are you placing object above subject? I think that may be trap, and an understandable trap it is, that you may be stuck in. As hard as it is to wrap our minds around, simply because we think in linguistic terms created around subject/object dualities, we have to break the linguist terms (the member Typist will love that comment!), and perceive with the subject part of the equation. It is not, nor cannot be ultimately "outside" ourselves. There is no "outside" that is 100% purely separate from the subject. We are the universe inside of us! Not just material, but consciousness itself! We are the One seeing the One seeing! We are looking at ourselves. How can we know reality without knowing ourselves? To know God is to know ourselves; to know ourselves is to know God.

Don't get me wrong, the exercise has utility, it's a way to know what we are made of, and who we are. But not in these isolated sacks "in here", with some imagined real word "out there", but to understand who we are in relationship with ourselves as the universe awakening to its own body and mind, the way an infant does as he awakens to his own personhood.

To say that the chair is "nothing" falls back into that philosophical idealism which I think isn't tenable.

No, it actually doesn't. I think what I'm saying goes a bit beyond that. It is important however to look at what insights come from there. Truth comes to light from multiple perspectives, not absolutizing any as a privileged perspective above all others. That's another trap people fall into, think that Truth is a single thing that if we look at long enough we can figure it out. That is my objection to absolutizing the 3rd person perspective of reality, as it is an object laying around out there that we can know by denying 1st and 2nd person perspectives. Idealism strives to bring back the 1st person, and rightly so! But let's not absolutize that either. It takes more than 3rd person perspective of the universe as an "it". It takes, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and beyond perspectives (that's a can of worms there I just opened. ).

Alright, my fingers are tired typing here, and I need to go plunge myself into the Deep after my morning cup of green tea is finished. I hope maybe some of what I'm saying here helps explain better what I'm attempting to say. It's really hard to put it into words. It's actually much better seen visually, hence why metaphors are so powerful. I see it as the great unfolding of a lotus flower. But how much does that covery in a response to the types of points of views being articulated? Words help to create structures, they also can help to break them when they become too defined and rigid to allow growth in that unfolding.

 

[jonathan180iq]

A chair does not exist in itself. It is a chair, only because we subjectively, and collectively understand it as a chair. It's actually nothing at all, from a certain subjective point of view. If you were to view it from the atom's point of view, there is no chair at all. All the atom sees is atoms. It cannot see nor understand molecules because it cannot see anything beyond its own reality. Molecules do not exist in the atom's world, only other atoms do. Humans do not exist to the atom, and nor do chairs. However, to a molecule atoms exist because atoms are a part of the molecule's world. They are included in its perceptual reality, so to speak. Likewise human being do not exist in the molecule's word because humans are constructions above their reality. All molecules see are themselves, other molecules, and everything that they are made of. They are not made of humans. You follow so far?

There is no "chair". A chair is simply a collection of atoms and molecules assembled into an object by humans, imbuing it with form and function, meaning and utility. All of which are coming from a subjective perception from the human being itself. If you remove the human, the chair is not a chair. It's nothing. It's atoms to an atom, molecules to a molecule, a vertical object to a centipede, a piece of wood to a squirrel, etc. All only seeing what fits within their relative "objective" realities. It is only objective relative to the one perceiving. Put another way, without the subject, objective reality does not exist. The chair does not exist "objectively" in itself. It exists relative to the perceiver.

So continue to break than analogy down - in concept, my analogy still holds water, and that was the whole point.
I used a chair and 100 people because that's obvious relative to us. If you want to continue breaking down relativism, then what's in the room if there is only a molecule. What's in the room if there is only an atom. What's in the room if there is only an electron? What's in the room if there are only Neutrinos, or Muons, or Quarks? What's in the room if there is only the theoretical string?

The Objective Reality of the room is still that there is something, regardless of perception. Even that to which we are ignorant exists in Objective Reality, regardless of our perception or inability to perceive.

Nope. I don't believe we "will" reality into being. I believe we co-create reality. The atoms become a chair to us because we make it a chair. In fact, atoms become atoms to us because we co-create them with the objects of our mental constructs. They are not are mental constructs in reality, are they? No, they are simply beyond our ideas, unknowable "in themselves", by us. We understand them through the particular lenses we are creating their reality to us through. Then we look to this world of mental objects, our little two-dimensional stick figure models of reality as actually being reflective of reality beyond ourselves! This is the grand illusion of mind.

Reality exists, but we cannot know it "as it is" through the eyes of our relative being.

I'm not sure I follow about Atoms being part of our mental contructs... Atoms exists. We have discovered atoms. Regardless of our ignorance or inability to perceive them in some way, they are what they are, plus or minus our interpretation of them.

And what value is it to speak of it in absolutes from a relative position? Can you speak of it from a non-relative position? Can you speak of it from the point of view of a moth? Can you speak of it from the point of view of an atom? Can you speak of it from any point of view other than human? And can you speak of it from all points of views of all humans? You cannot.

Relative absolutes are simply another branch of subjectivity. I'm not rejecting their existence, but I am distinguishing them from Objective Reality.
Can I speak of it from a non-relative position? I think in solid, logical concepts I can, yes. The fact that I cannot or will not understand something should have no effect whatsoever on it's actual existence. Now, I see a hole in that argument for the existence of things that we would currently consider to be supernatural. But I will contest that until we have evidence for that which we do not know we cannot merely assume that it exists.

It would be nothing more than conjecture and guess to assume the existence of those things which we are ignorant of, wouldn't it, since ignorance by definition render us incapable of guessing accurately.

We are partially in agreement here, which is good. But I'll focus on my point about co-creation though. The subject is part of this "Objective Reality". It is included within it, not excluded from it. In this sense the there is no objective nor subjective reality in the Absolute sense. Right? Subject and object only exist in the relative plane, not the Absolute. So you cannot call Reality, "Objective Reality" because it excludes the subject and therefore is not Reality itself which includes all relative realities, subjective and objective.

Well, there must be an Objective sense to the Absolute by definition, at least as I'm using the world Objective. (I think what you call Absolute I call Objective Reality...)
As I've mentioned before, every matter of subjectivity exist within the framework of Objective Reality, but subjective realities are not Objectively real. There is no breakdown that works which can elevate any level of subjectivity to the level of Objectivity.

Again, it's certainly all part of the Objective - but as a subset within it.

From the way I'm reading you, I feel as if your analogy would make every level of subjectivity on par with the Objective, which is by definition impossible.

Oh yes it is. How is it not? Remember "objective" reality is only relevant in speaking of the relative plane of existence of dualities, not the Absolute. You cannot have an object without a subject. That's the nature of duality.

I don't see any reason, outside of subjectivity, to accept that there is a duality, which is why I argue that there is only Objective Reality. Nothing else.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Reality is subjective. Levels of consciousness would probably be closer to the concept.

Yes, that's roughly the way I think about it. Consciousness and therefore experience can change.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Objective Reality doesn't deny subjective realities. On the contrary, subjective realities are quite obviously a part of the one expression of the Objective. But Objective Reality is not affected by subjectivity.

But perception is always subjective, so you're proposing something beyond our experience.

 

[Thief]

But perception is always subjective, so you're proposing something beyond our experience.

What I do at this distance is also beyond your perception.
Still happens.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What I do at this distance is also beyond your perception.
Still happens.

No, I meant that the process of perception is always subjective, so proposing an objective reality is troublesome.

 

[jonathan180iq]

But perception is always subjective, so you're proposing something beyond our experience.

No, I meant that the process of perception is always subjective, so proposing an objective reality is troublesome.

The inverse of what you're suggesting, at least to me, only leaves the conclusion that all reality, including Reality, is only perception.

It gets back to the basic question of a tree falling in the woods. Does it make a sound?
Given what you, and I think Windwalker, are suggesting, a better question would be, does the tree even fall? If there is no perception, than is it part of Objective Reality?

The Geologic processes that shaped the Earth before the existence of the even the first organism were active well before our perception of them, weren't they? The Geologic processes that shaped all of the planets prior to our ability to observe them still happened, regardless of our perception, didn't they? The developing of a relationship and eventual coitus of your parents prior to your birth happened, regardless of your perception of it, didn't it?

Why then would the "chair" suddenly not exist without the perception of cognizant beings to observe it?

I'm only proposing that which is entirely founded on our experience.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The inverse of what you're suggesting, at least to me, only leaves the conclusion that all reality, including Reality, is only perception.

I'm not saying that stuff doesn't exist, I'm saying that our perception of that stuff is inherently subjective and limited. I'm challenging your notion of Reality with a capital R.

I am generally a little dubious when people start beginning words with capital letters.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm not saying that stuff doesn't exist, I'm saying that our perception of that stuff is inherently subjective and limited. I'm challenging your notion of Reality with a capital R.

I am generally a little dubious when people start beginning words with capital letters.

I'm not even suggesting that we can know what reality is with a capital R, simply that it must exist and that it supersedes all subjectivity.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm not even suggesting that we can know what reality is with a capital R, simply that it must exist and that it supersedes all subjectivity.

Why must it exist? All we know is that we perceive stuff.

 

[lovemuffin]

Windwalker, I think we are saying similar things, just from slightly different angles. I suspect we don't really disagree very much at all, but just hear certain phrases or sentences in slightly different ways.

If you take a step back further, as I suggested in my post, to the atom's point of view, does the chair exist?

I was also attempting to address this in distinguishing between chair as human concept and chair as a word referencing some collection of atoms, so to speak. From the "atom's point of view", other atoms do exist, in the sense that it interacts with them. So in this sense I meant to say that "chair" is both subjective and objective and cannot be reduced to either perspective entirely. I think you are trying to get to something similar from your other remarks:

All relative realities only exist 'objectively' from the perspective of God. It requires taking all perspectives, and privileging none. To say the chair continues to exist as an object in time and space assume an human perception of reality as that of absolute truth...

Now my point is, that which I just described also "objectively" exists. But can one who has never seen beyond their own world know it?

Again, to repeat, I am not saying it exists only in our mind. I am saying that it requires our mind to see that "something"

Truth comes to light from multiple perspectives, not absolutizing any as a privileged perspective above all others

This is sort of the distinction I was trying to make as well, between the reality of the object for the subject, which necessarily contains an subjective element, and its existence which transcends our subjectivity, at least in part. When you say that realities exist only objectively from the perspective of God, I am reminded of Berkeleyan idealism, as I've said (c.f. Subjective Idealism), which seems to me to be sort of at odds with saying that it also exists outside our mind ("I am not saying it exists only in our mind"), but I think we might be just bumping into the vagaries of words. I think you are just trying to highlight this fundamental insight that an "object" by itself (or in itself) is a kind of abstraction that doesn't exist. That it has to be an object for a subject. I am in agreement with this.

To attempt to further explicate my idea about this relation between subject and object, I will say I think it is advaita. It is non-dual. So I agree with you that we shouldn't absolutize the 3rd person perspective. We can distinguish the "subjectivity" from the "objectivity" as descriptions of reality understood under different lights, but not separate them. The priority of the subject, so to speak, is in that for the subject reality is only real subjectively. Our awareness is necessarily a subjective lens. On the other hand, the priority of the object is in the realization that the reality of which we are subjectively aware seems to have a certain solidness to it, a certain force that pushes back against us, that we do no consciously control it or dictate its nature. We participate in it and are involved in its coming to be, its creation, as you say, but it is not only the fruit of our individual will alone.

Reality is only seen when the subject sees.

Agreed. Panikkar describes this in a different way with his cosmotheandric intuition, which you might find interesting:

"There is a kind of perichoresis, a dwelling within one another, of these three dimensions of Reality: the Divine, the Human, and the Cosmic.

There is no matter without spirit and no spirit without matter, no World without Man, no God without the universe, etc. God, Man, and World are three artificially substantivized forms of the three primordial adjectives which describe Reality."
​

He means by "artificially substantivized" something like what you mean by absolutized. If you think of "world" as the objective and "human" as subject, the relation to what we've been saying is hopefully clear. The perichoresis he describes is also advaita. he considers the two to be functionally equivalent. "No World without Man" is the equivalent of "reality is only seen when the subject sees." To me, this idea captures a lot of what we seem to be trying to get at, and incorporates a theological insight which avoids many of the problems of classical theism, which wants to make God an utterly transcendent being separate from a "creation".

 

[jonathan180iq]

Why must it exist? All we know is that we perceive stuff.

I had a quick response but realized it was bit circular in reasoning....

So let me just wing it for a sec.
Given everything we know, including limitations to knowledge and the things that we know we don't know, we can still infer based on our current experiences that there exist "things" apart from humanity and its perceptions. Whether or not we perceive a rock on a beach, that rock is there. We know that from experience within this existence. We know this from the confluence of individual subjective perceptions. (Remember, as I said, subjectivity is a part of Objective Reality).

If you remove all of the perceptions of that rock, does the rock suddenly cease to exist simply because it is no longer perceived? I don't see how it would.

 

[suncowiam]

I had a quick response but realized it was bit circular in reasoning....

So let me just wing it for a sec.
Given everything we know, including limitations to knowledge and the things that we know we don't know, we can still infer based on our current experiences that there exist "things" apart from humanity and its perceptions. Whether or not we perceive a rock on a beach, that rock is there. We know that from experience within this existence. We know this from the confluence of individual subjective perceptions. (Remember, as I said, subjectivity is a part of Objective Reality).

If you remove all of the perceptions of that rock, does the rock suddenly cease to exist simply because it is no longer perceived? I don't see how it would.

If a tree fell in the middle of a forest, does it make a sound if it fell on top of a squirrel?

 

[jonathan180iq]

If a tree fell in the middle of a forest, does it make a sound if it fell on top of a squirrel?

It would make the most awesome sound!

 

[suncowiam]

It would make the most awesome sound!

Squoooooosh! or Thuuuump!

=P

 

[Whiterain]

This will be a fascinating read.

In my experience, while I'm partly delusional, I believe there are other realms on Earth itself, other dimensions Man can not willing perceive or travel. It is in Celtic pagan folklore that there is another realm coinciding with this one, and you can witness it one day a year, I forget the date. But it's fascinating, some people can see the realms, it's as if a veil is over your eyes, it was shown to me.

But then there is schizophrenia, damn. Some people have severe problems, mine are quite thrilling. Moving on, it's fascinating and science will one day come to the conclusion of whether or not there is another dimension coinciding with us, quantum physics is amazing, and the study goes on now.

I also see the mind as another dimension, even a realm of communication. You can really strengthen your mind by doing constructive activities like building a castle or temple inside your mind.

I believe in sentient energy. Beings made of energy or light, it would be amazing if more people talked about them, but I've seen so few.

I believe I have the willpower to transcend mortal flesh, I'm almost certain I can and will continue to be after death as I have been for eons. It's a stroke of the ego once you start going on about yourself. It's not entirely foolish to talk about or is it? It's not an approachable discussion, hey I was a great hero once, not living up to that reputation this life. So it toils the mind to know of these memories, they can bring hardship and heartache ten fold.

Whether or not I am lying to you is plausible in that I believe in what I'm telling you is true. It's not because I can't prove re-incarnation is real, it would be excellent if one could prove it. Such a marvellous and ancient idea, reincarnation. The idea your loved ones will be reborn and it is one of the oldest beliefs.

Samhain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thief]

I'm not saying that stuff doesn't exist, I'm saying that our perception of that stuff is inherently subjective and limited. I'm challenging your notion of Reality with a capital R.

I am generally a little dubious when people start beginning words with capital letters.

Really?

 

[Thief]

The sun will rise tomorrow....whether you are here to see it...or not.

Reality does not depend on your perception of it.

Belief depends on how you think and feel.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Samhain: "The shows that the ancient Celtic year closed with the season of autumn and the beginning of winter which corresponded with the last day of October, or the eve of
November, and was marked by festivals which indicated the victory of darkness over light. As regards the middle of the year or summer in the Celtic traditions, the same authority further informs us that “The Lammas fairs and meetings forming the Lugnassad in ancient Ireland marked the victorious close of the sun’s contest with the powers of darkness and death, when the warmth and light of that luminary’s rays, after routing the colds and blights, were fast bringing the crops to maturity. This, more mythologically expressed, was represented as the final crushing of Fomori and Fir Bolg, the death of their king and the nullifying of their malignant spells, and as the triumphant return of Lug with peace and plenty to marry the maiden Erinn and to enjoy a well-earned banquet, at which the fairy host of dead ancestors was probably not forgotten."
"Arctic Home in Vedas", Bal Gangadhar Tilak