Sick of the "human mind creates reality" camp

[azzazza !?]

Psyduck, it sounds like Heidegger basically stole my idea long before I was born. (And probably Plato and the Vedic philosophers long before him.)

i wish i had a dime for everytime i had a great idea only to discover some ancient or not so ancient schmuck already thought of it i think i gave up somewhere in the meanwhile. they still owe me money though

 

[panic in paradise]

although i do have that question on occasion, that wasn't what i was getting at in here, maybe i worded poorly. i like your note that we all create the universe together, the will of one has a boundary which meets that of other wills. My point was the question why would humanity have this ability, and not animals, or plants, etc. Remember we're not talking metaphor here, this isn't about personal freedoms and how they interact (they are exactly as you describe), we are talking about manifestation in the metaphysical sense.

i have reason to believe in manifestation like this. seemingly prophetic dreams, the ability to draw a desire to myself both seem uncanny in ways, yet i still don't want to buy it. i, like yourself, have took much at stake to risk becoming madder pursuing such notions.

In a sense of regeneration, this is the end of line, being a human,
and our greatest obsticle is our intellect and ego. There is so much we understand and
wish to defend, but dont connect to the source of the cause ask yourself...but
do not be amazed to proceed questioning, nothings shocking once the current is finally
grounded.

lol

 

[L2R]

i don't want the world to go away when i blink next, so i stopped

 

[panic in paradise]

^ nope ain't laughing


...!

 

[twentysix]

By interpretation, I believe this is true.

But as some say, if you believe it, it is true. But I can't believe that the Earth is square, because that would be a very unstable shape for such a large object to hold. There might me a planet out there that is more or less "square", though... but I doubt it would support life like ours, and the space that it would inhabit would be very exotic, relative to the space and gravity here. But here, our earth circles our sun in a relatively circular, rounded fashion, and it is relatively circular/rounded. Even the shells of atoms, the particles circle. We move our arms in circles, and our eyes are circular/rounded. The motion of our legs moving us along forms a semi-circle, even though oblong... it's still circular.

An abrupt halt in direction, such as what happens in a square, doesn't make sense, therefore I could never believe it, and I doubt that any fully cognizing force could see it as being, except in some exotic, interpretative sense, unless it existed in that exotic space I was talking about, or something. Even there, I imagine the edges would be more round. Squares might exist, but even they are more likely to be octagons, I would think. There might be super-exotic states though that have such sharp edges... but I don't know. At all. Ha-ha.

I think it's kind of both- that we create but we are essentially everything in a sense detached, presently (but not). Our minds as they manifest are as they are, a manifestation of... what is, anyways. This is why I don't believe imaginary is imaginary as in not real, but something that is valuable the same as anything else we value.

The guy was right, but it's how we interpret it.

 

[ziggo]

I say Believe whatever you want to believe, although it's certainly harder to believe certain things forever.

 

[panic in paradise]

I say Believe whatever you want to believe, although it's certainly harder to believe certain things forever.

This is a lie based on faith -
But youre gonna do it anyways.
:-/

 

[Survived Abortion]

@ the OP: Sounds like a terrible interruption to your meditation.

Not at all, I enjoy meeting new people frequently in such situations, which happens quite freqently.

the whole neo can change the matrix thing is based on the circular logic that you can only actually make the universe what you want if you believe it, and so then it is only your doubt which is constantly being proven by the fact that you can't. ironically, it is an essential disbelief of the outside world which is equally required for that doubt to be gone, and who really can be that sure of unreality whilst also maintaining a functional mind? bit of a catch-22.

Precisely. This is what I was trying to explain in so many words when I referred to the logical fallacy. And you bring up a good point about 'The Matrix', because it was a very successful movie which seemed at the time to inspire a great surge of interest in metaphysical matters.

i believe that reality is totally indifferent to our perception. the whole human species could disappear tomorrow and the universe will carry on just as it was for bilions or trillions of years and nothing would change.

Again, this is what I'm saying. Just like the schroedinger's cat metioned above, the idea is ridiculous and I'm really not sure how people arrive at such a conviction. I can only assume that it is something to do with people misunderstanding modern physics.

Well, who says that it's a "choice" of people? Heideggers concept of Being is useful here. For him Being is the mutual appropriation/granting of a relationship between Dasein (human being) and entities. We don't choose this "openness" and "intelligiblity relation" between us and entities. Just like in ancient times people saw entities AS platonic ideas, or in the middle ages they saw them AS ideas in the divine mind, in modernity they saw entities AS grounded in the rational mind who is able to construct scientific models of reality. The word "AS" is really important here -- think about it hard, probably about 10 or 20 years . Anyway, all these different ways entities can appear are not the choice of human beings. This is the "event" of Being (someting "meta") which opens the light "between" us and entities, some kind of mutual relationship in which we relate to them. According to the later Heidegger’s thought the historical destiny of the West and indeed of the entire Westernizing world is towards subjectivity. Heidegger reads the history of metaphysics as a series of epochs linked together by a narrative of the rise of willful subjectivity, a story that culminates in the technological “will to will.” So, yes... for Heidegger in our current epoch we are assigned the destiny of subjectivity... But we are blind (oblivious) and think "we" construct reality, but actually it's Being which grants the mutual relationship between human beings and entities. This is his talk about the oblivion of Being, the forgetting of the granting of a mutual relationship between human beings and entities. You can compare this with when you are wearing glasses. After a while you forget you are wearing them and just look at reality. Metaphorically similar there are "metaphysical glasses" ("between" you and the world) in which we can see entities in a certain light, that is, with a certain intelligiblity. (i.e. platonic ideas, matter/form; res extensa, etc.). And Heideggers critique says that we forgot we are destined to wear a certain type of glasses such that the "world" lights up in a certain kind of way. In the epoch of subjectivity one thinks one is the creator of all meanings, but actually one forgets Being.

I don't know who Heideggar is, but this resonates with me. Thanks for cogently explaining it here.

What you're asking in a roundabout way is an entirely different question: why are you living the life you are right now, as opposed to some other, or none at all? This is the existential question at the root of all spirituality, and it's a profound and fascinating one as far as I'm concerned (many would disagree). But I think this question can (and should) be bracketed when approaching the role our beholding has in the creation of reality. Take is as given -- a great, mysterious given -- that you're front and center of existence experiencing itself firsthand, right now.

I have pondered this last point many times. It seems quite incredible that the perception of 'all that is' is rooted in one ego amongst many egos. And that there are others beyond the limits of my ego with apparently similar mechanisms of "self" (other human beings, plants, animals etc.) from who's perspective of reality I cannot perceive. Why am I me, and not you, seems to be the question you are posing, and it is fascinating. When considering whether or not I am the entire universe, (as some teachings would have us believe), I must take this in to consideration.

I am inseperable from the universe, and I am an interdependent co-arising of the universe (the molecules of my body - which defines particular parameters of my ego, are the same molecules that make up what appears to be the world beyond those parameters. In other words, the molecules of the body of one sentitent being will eventually become the molecules of the body of another, and in fact are always shared, continuously in every moment, with every breath). But if I am you, why do I not perceive through your eyes?

The way I currently see it is that you are the other side of me. It's as if there are many or infinite souls in the universe, and we share same mechanism of space and time (matter), so that the apparent events of our current "forms" are completely interchangeable with each other. Thus all the matter that apparently re-creates what I perceive to be my personal boundaries of physicality is exactly the same as that which re-creates all else. But beyond the matter of events we are a silent, unmoving point of singularity, atman.

What's beyond that is up for great specualtion. Maybe this is incorrect, and that we are all the very same, just perceiving itself from different points. But if that is the case, it runs in to problems with the question posited above. Why would 'one' have the spontaneous volition to begin perceiving itself from seperate perspectives, and what keeps those seperate perspectives from blending, even though we are inseperable. It makes little sense to me. What makes more sense is that there are many, and that those 'many' are perceiving each other and themselves via their interaction with each other. A cosmic orgy.

And if this is the case, then - as someone else pointed out in this thread earlier - my will is met with the will of all else.

Just some thoughts.

 

[panic in paradise]

^
thats great please continue !
:D

We are much like fireflys in a jar, he whom holds the lid, and also views it from a far.