|
Post by zendancer on Aug 8, 2017 15:34:36 GMT -5
I could post this under the "Drawing a Line" thread or here, but I'll post it here. This is part of the preface to the 1994 limited edition of "Laws of Form" by G. Spencer Brown. Read it slowly and let it sink in; it is stating in a different way what Enigma and I have stated elsewhere in other ways:
"(because people are becoming a bit more aware) I can now refer to the falseness of scientific doctrine, what I call scientific duplicity; that appearance and reality are somehow different.
Since there is no means, other than appearance, for studying reality, they are definitively the same. But the scientist not only supposes they are different, and that he is 'gradually finding out' the one by means of the other: he supposes also that awareness of the reality-appearance is something that is different again; and that the universe might have existed for billions of years amid total unawareness of what was going on. This I shall have to call scientific triplicity. Again, by definition, there can be no appearance that is not an awareness of appearance, and, of course, no awareness that is not an appearance of awareness. And since the scale of real-unreal cannot apply to appearance in general (as it can distinguish between real and toy soldiers), whatever appears, as appearance, must be equally real and unreal.
Reversing the false distinctions, we arrive at what I call the triple identity, notably the definitional identity of reality, appearance, and awareness. ....It is the triple identity that apparently provides the magic inflator principle that makes it all seem like it's really there.
The word 'there' supplies the trick. There exists in reality no 'where' for the 'there' to be. Nor is there any 'when." All these are constructions of imagination, inventions of apparently stable formations for the apparent appearances. Hence, another expression of the triple identity: the identity of imaginability, possibility, and actuality.
The universe is simply what would appear if it could. Its laws are the laws of the possible, called by Sakyamuni the links of conditioned coproduction, called by me the calculus of indications. Each teaches exactly the same teaching, how what cannot possibly be anything comes to appear as if it were something. Since there is only one way this can happen, the teaching is always the same.
A thing is not possible unless it is imaginable, and we could never confirm that it was possible unless it appeared in actuality. Thus what is possible will always be found to exist, and its actual existence (for example helium, carbon 60) will be discovered soon after its possibility has been imagined. What exists is formally constructed by postulating the imagination of a hypothetical human being that is supposed to perceive it, and different beings will bring about the construction of different existences. A totally different being will construct a totally different existence.
'We' make an existence by taking apart the elements of a triple identity. The existence ceases when we put them together again. Sakyamuni, the only other author who evidently discovered these laws, remarked in this context, 'Existence is duality; non-existence is non duality."
(G. Spencer has stated the situation rather eloquently here. In my words, "Existence is imaginary; non-existence is non-dual"). Some people who read this will say, "Do you mean that in reality nothing is here?" Yes. No thing exists until it is imagined into existence. Some people will then ask, "Do you mean that "what is" is imagined into existence?" No. What is is what is. We can point to "what is" by using a blank line, _________________, but we cannot say what it is without resorting to imagination and cutting up "what is" into distinct abstract states. IOW, there is a big difference between the idea of a tree and the isness of what a tree is. The isness is unbounded whereas the idea, by virtue of its creative nature, must have bounds in order to distinguish distinct states differing in value.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2017 16:33:40 GMT -5
So you're telling Reefs this thread is a waste of time. We are going to walk off the beaten track here for a while. It will put everything in perspective. But eventually we will come full circle again. Let's not rush that arrival though.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 9, 2017 0:16:19 GMT -5
The solipsist's own everyday life experience will prove him wrong (as will all his intuitions and basic instincts and common sense, i.e. the larger part of his self/beingness). It has no basis in any reality. I think that's why Jed recommends it. But he's recommending it for people who are sincerely seeking. People who are doing what Niz advised to do in terms of becoming familiar with the content of their minds. And I don't think that the author of the Jed books was all that concerned with his effect on the insincere. I am going to show later why that is. The average Joe knows interconnectedness, but doesn't know oneness. The awakened one knows both. The solipsist knows neither. To pull this off, the solipsist has to consciously block out any data that connects him to the larger reality in which his personal reality exists. Which means he has to cut himself off from his physical body, his feelings, intuitions and dreams. As such, the solipsist's position is similar to the position of a brain in a jar or a robot. And this is a very sad position to adopt for a human being. Fortunately, it's not possible to actually keep that up for longer than a few moments at a time. The constant stimuli and enourmous flow of data that is coming from that larger reality are just too strong and powerful. They are going to immediately override such notions so that those musings won't actually have any practical consequences. That's why the solipsist can't help but take the people he interacts with for real, i.e. as actual perceivers - no matter what he has concluded about them beforehand. Which brings us back to this limited free will. So in practical terms, as a practical way of living, solipsism is dead on arrival. I'll get back to this when I cover camouflage and telepathy.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 9, 2017 1:47:05 GMT -5
Yes, I agree with this . What I see as problematic with this however in regards to the other forum conversation is the continual cross dressing of platforms . The point of reference made in the first instance relates to a waking world dude that believes they are potentially the only sole existence . So we have to base that sense of existence from the origin of that sense . In this case it is of the waking world as a physical peep . I am a developing trance healer / medium so I know all too well about other energies stepping into one's shoes and in your line of thought I would say that a non physical being would not entertain trying to perceive through a mannequin lol, what would the point be of that? Non physical entities require their mediums to be conscious beings that are able to function in this world . Has anyone seen a mannequin go into a trance state? I doubt it . There is one important point though. When you step into another's shoes, you keep your identity. With 'cross dressing' you mean changing context? When the spirit - non physical entity looks through your eyes, you keep your identity as does the non physical entity does . I am not 100% sure of what process Seth is speaking about now . Are we speaking of two different energies occupying the same space type of thing where two individuals are aware of the same point of perception or are we saying that the spirit host of the physical body has temporarily vacated the body to allow the entity in so to speak? This way the non physical entity can use the hosts body and perceive the world through their eyes . In regards to cross dressing platforms I feel that there is the requirement to take note of where the actual quandary arises . In this instance it does relate to a peep of the physical waking world . The quandary doesn't arise in the realization of what you are, nor states of I am just aware . What happens is that a particular mental state of questioning their own reflection in the waking world occurs . one has to address the quandary in relation to how they find themselves in such a position and in such a quandary . What has and is happening is that peeps are cross dressing platforms that doesn't actually reflect that position . Peeps are saying they are real in reflection of a dream character and then the dream character walks the earth and things like that .
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 9, 2017 2:56:27 GMT -5
When the spirit - non physical entity looks through your eyes, you keep your identity as does the non physical entity does . I am not 100% sure of what process Seth is speaking about now . Are we speaking of two different energies occupying the same space type of thing where two individuals are aware of the same point of perception or are we saying that the spirit host of the physical body has temporarily vacated the body to allow the entity in so to speak? This way the non physical entity can use the hosts body and perceive the world through their eyes . The first one. In regards to cross dressing platforms I feel that there is the requirement to take note of where the actual quandary arises . In this instance it does relate to a peep of the physical waking world . The quandary doesn't arise in the realization of what you are, nor states of I am just aware . What happens is that a particular mental state of questioning their own reflection in the waking world occurs . one has to address the quandary in relation to how they find themselves in such a position and in such a quandary . What has and is happening is that peeps are cross dressing platforms that doesn't actually reflect that position . Peeps are saying they are real in reflection of a dream character and then the dream character walks the earth and things like that . Yes, clear definitions are important. Depending on your frame of reference, physical or non-physical, an appearance can mean different things. So the context of the conversation has to be clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 6:44:45 GMT -5
I think that's why Jed recommends it. But he's recommending it for people who are sincerely seeking. People who are doing what Niz advised to do in terms of becoming familiar with the content of their minds. And I don't think that the author of the Jed books was all that concerned with his effect on the insincere. The average Joe knows interconnectedness, but doesn't know oneness. The awakened one knows both. The solipsist knows neither. To pull this off, the solipsist has to consciously block out any data that connects him to the larger reality in which his personal reality exists. Which means he has to cut himself off from his physical body, his feelings, intuitions and dreams. As such, the solipsist's position is similar to the position of a brain in a jar or a robot. And this is a very sad position to adopt for a human being. Fortunately, it's not possible to actually keep that up for longer than a few moments at a time. The constant stimuli and enormous flow of data that is coming from that larger reality are just too strong and powerful. They are going to immediately override such notions so that those musings won't actually have any practical consequences. That's why the solipsist can't help but take the people he interacts with for real, i.e. as actual perceivers - no matter what he has concluded about them beforehand. Which brings us back to this limited free will. So in practical terms, as a practical way of living, solipsism is dead on arrival. I'll get back to this when I cover camouflage and telepathy. Yes, as the larger reality is made by us, for us, and is us, the solipsist is unable to be the blood-bred respect that his humanity or in spiritual terms, his godness was evolved to be.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 10, 2017 4:05:04 GMT -5
When the spirit - non physical entity looks through your eyes, you keep your identity as does the non physical entity does . I am not 100% sure of what process Seth is speaking about now . Are we speaking of two different energies occupying the same space type of thing where two individuals are aware of the same point of perception or are we saying that the spirit host of the physical body has temporarily vacated the body to allow the entity in so to speak? This way the non physical entity can use the hosts body and perceive the world through their eyes . The first one.In regards to cross dressing platforms I feel that there is the requirement to take note of where the actual quandary arises . In this instance it does relate to a peep of the physical waking world . The quandary doesn't arise in the realization of what you are, nor states of I am just aware . What happens is that a particular mental state of questioning their own reflection in the waking world occurs . one has to address the quandary in relation to how they find themselves in such a position and in such a quandary . What has and is happening is that peeps are cross dressing platforms that doesn't actually reflect that position . Peeps are saying they are real in reflection of a dream character and then the dream character walks the earth and things like that . Yes, clear definitions are important. Depending on your frame of reference, physical or non-physical, an appearance can mean different things. So the context of the conversation has to be clear. In regards to the first one .. It's a little tricky to perceive through another's eyes butt still retain your identity . Where does the sense of one's identity overlap another's? If not at all then one perhaps could be perceiving what their perceiving through their own filter / sense . In that respect, it's not the same . Many healers experience the symptoms of the patient, i.e. if they have a bad back then you can feel it too for a moment or two . This is part of the tuning in process for some, butt your not actually experiencing their back pain even though it's their back pain that your tuning into hehehe .. Your second part in regards to being clear on the foundations / references it is paramount . Even though you can perceive through another's eyes so to speak there is still cross dressing happening . You have the physical and the non physical platforms . Is it possible for a physical peep to step into another physical peeps shoes, I say not . I would say it doesn't matter as the bigger picture reveals and allows sooo much more of knowings / realizations . Andy and I have spoken about the nature of the quandary only relying on a small slither of experience and in that respect their stepping into another's shoes thingy does hold weight from that slither of a perspective . The thing is there is more to life and all that jazz than that slither .. That's why realizing what you are in their eyes doesn't cut the mustard .. butt it really does ..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 10, 2017 18:23:49 GMT -5
I think that's why Jed recommends it. But he's recommending it for people who are sincerely seeking. People who are doing what Niz advised to do in terms of becoming familiar with the content of their minds. And I don't think that the author of the Jed books was all that concerned with his effect on the insincere. The average Joe knows interconnectedness, but doesn't know oneness. The awakened one knows both. The solipsist knows neither. To pull this off, the solipsist has to consciously block out any data that connects him to the larger reality in which his personal reality exists. Which means he has to cut himself off from his physical body, his feelings, intuitions and dreams. As such, the solipsist's position is similar to the position of a brain in a jar or a robot. And this is a very sad position to adopt for a human being. Fortunately, it's not possible to actually keep that up for longer than a few moments at a time. The constant stimuli and enourmous flow of data that is coming from that larger reality are just too strong and powerful. They are going to immediately override such notions so that those musings won't actually have any practical consequences. That's why the solipsist can't help but take the people he interacts with for real, i.e. as actual perceivers - no matter what he has concluded about them beforehand. Which brings us back to this limited free will. So in practical terms, as a practical way of living, solipsism is dead on arrival. I'll get back to this when I cover camouflage and telepathy. Well, let me put on my "hyperminder's advocate" hat for a round or two. Solipsism is philisophically bullet-proof because whatever experiential evidence you offer the solipsist can reply "yeah, but". There's a valid pointer at issue here, in that appearences can never reveal the existential truth, which isn't an appearence. This is what the lucid dreamer metaphor illustrates so well. But the pointer that the same consciousness looks through every pair of eyes is just as valid, as is the obvious fact that I am not you, and you are not me. It's only the thinking, analytical mind that contrives the contradiction. This is an interesting question you raise about whether it's an experiential matter of degree or a particular realization that puts this question to rest. From what I've read of ZD's writing about koans, the solipsist hasn't yet penetrated the nature of "thingness". Check out those parts of "I AM THAT" where Niz uses the term "Universe", as I find them particularly relevent to the issue in the terms you've framed it. Certainly a CC would put this to rest, but I can recall coming to terms with the nature of physical boundaries long ago when my existential seeking was completely unconscious -- but even then I would likely have argued from a misinformed perspective on the solipsism issue. Even just an inellectual understanding on interconnectedness can go a long way, but for the solipsist to connect the dots they would have to do as Seungsahn suggests in terms of "not knowing", as as Niz suggests in terms of observing the contents of their minds.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 10, 2017 19:32:57 GMT -5
Well, let me put on my "hyperminder's advocate" hat for a round or two. Solipsism is philisophically bullet-proof because whatever experiential evidence you offer the solipsist can reply "yeah, but". There's a valid pointer at issue here, in that appearences can never reveal the existential truth, which isn't an appearence. This is what the lucid dreamer metaphor illustrates so well. But the pointer that the same consciousness looks through every pair of eyes is just as valid, as is the obvious fact that I am not you, and you are not me. It's only the thinking, analytical mind that contrives the contradiction. This is an interesting question you raise about whether it's an experiential matter of degree or a particular realization that puts this question to rest. From what I've read of ZD's writing about koans, the solipsist hasn't yet penetrated the nature of "thingness". Check out those parts of "I AM THAT" where Niz uses the term "Universe", as I find them particularly relevent to the issue in the terms you've framed it. Certainly a CC would put this to rest, but I can recall coming to terms with the nature of physical boundaries long ago when my existential seeking was completely unconscious -- but even then I would likely have argued from a misinformed perspective on the solipsism issue. Even just an inellectual understanding on interconnectedness can go a long way, but for the solipsist to connect the dots they would have to do as Seungsahn suggests in terms of "not knowing", as as Niz suggests in terms of observing the contents of their minds. Well, first we would have to settle on a definition of what 'appearance' means. We've never really done that. There have been two versions so far, one is appearance in the sense of objects or form in general and the other one in the sense of figments, i.e. not perceivable with the physical camouflage senses, like mental imagery. This is what Tenka has been pointing out, that after you have settled on a final definition of what appearance means you then have to also settle on a 'platform' as he calls it, the perspective from which you are approaching this subject, i.e. is it from the camouflage physical perspective or from the non-camouflage non-physical perspective because this involves two different set of eyes so to speak. There has been total confusion in that regard so far. That's why this discussion always ends in a trainwreck. But no matter what definition you choose, the pointer that appearances cannot reveal any existential truth is a half-truth only because it only applies to appearances looked at with the physical camouflage senses. That's what the all-is-made-of-cheese pointer was pointing to, or as Seth says, the truth is in the illusions. To realize this nature of 'thingness', it takes a CC. However, it doesn't take a CC to realize that solipsism is TMT, the realization of interconnectedness is enough. And this, everyone knows intuitively. You can drown that intuitive knowledge in mental noise for a while so that you consciously start to question it and you may actually believe it, but at the end of the day, the solipsist is no different from everyone else because those kind of beliefs and conclusions never make it to the visceral level. And so solipsism has no consequences in real life. It's usefulness is entirely limited to the realm of philosophical discussion. And another thing I noticed that the solipsists have been confused about is the "emptiness is form and form is emptiness" pointer. They take emptiness to be literally empty. ETA: According to Seth, object are actually events. There's nothing empty about it, empty in the sense we know the term.
|
|
|
Post by muddywaters on Aug 11, 2017 17:16:21 GMT -5
Well, let me put on my "hyperminder's advocate" hat for a round or two. Solipsism is philisophically bullet-proof because whatever experiential evidence you offer the solipsist can reply "yeah, but". There's a valid pointer at issue here, in that appearences can never reveal the existential truth, which isn't an appearence. This is what the lucid dreamer metaphor illustrates so well. But the pointer that the same consciousness looks through every pair of eyes is just as valid, as is the obvious fact that I am not you, and you are not me. It's only the thinking, analytical mind that contrives the contradiction. This is an interesting question you raise about whether it's an experiential matter of degree or a particular realization that puts this question to rest. From what I've read of ZD's writing about koans, the solipsist hasn't yet penetrated the nature of "thingness". Check out those parts of "I AM THAT" where Niz uses the term "Universe", as I find them particularly relevent to the issue in the terms you've framed it. Certainly a CC would put this to rest, but I can recall coming to terms with the nature of physical boundaries long ago when my existential seeking was completely unconscious -- but even then I would likely have argued from a misinformed perspective on the solipsism issue. Even just an inellectual understanding on interconnectedness can go a long way, but for the solipsist to connect the dots they would have to do as Seungsahn suggests in terms of "not knowing", as as Niz suggests in terms of observing the contents of their minds. Well, first we would have to settle on a definition of what 'appearance' means. We've never really done that. There have been two versions so far, one is appearance in the sense of objects or form in general and the other one in the sense of figments, i.e. not perceivable with the physical camouflage senses, like mental imagery. This is what Tenka has been pointing out, that after you have settled on a final definition of what appearance means you then have to also settle on a 'platform' as he calls it, the perspective from which you are approaching this subject, i.e. is it from the camouflage physical perspective or from the non-camouflage non-physical perspective because this involves two different set of eyes so to speak. There has been total confusion in that regard so far. That's why this discussion always ends in a trainwreck. But no matter what definition you choose, the pointer that appearances cannot reveal any existential truth is a half-truth only because it only applies to appearances looked at with the physical camouflage senses. That's what the all-is-made-of-cheese pointer was pointing to, or as Seth says, the truth is in the illusions. To realize this nature of 'thingness', it takes a CC. However, it doesn't take a CC to realize that solipsism is TMT, the realization of interconnectedness is enough. And this, everyone knows intuitively. You can drown that intuitive knowledge in mental noise for a while so that you consciously start to question it and you may actually believe it, but at the end of the day, the solipsist is no different from everyone else because those kind of beliefs and conclusions never make it to the visceral level. And so solipsism has no consequences in real life. It's usefulness is entirely limited to the realm of philosophical discussion. And another thing I noticed that the solipsists have been confused about is the "emptiness is form and form is emptiness" pointer. They take emptiness to be literally empty. ETA: According to Seth, object are actually events. There's nothing empty about it, empty in the sense we know the term. hi I'm kinda new I know you guys have been at this a long time but I'm having just a little trouble with the abbreviations you use and wondered if you could give me a hint about them? I can go to google or wherever and read to catch up just don't know what keywords to use. The two I'm especially interested from reading various threads are 'CC' and 'SR'. These seem very interesting but I haven't quite been able to infer the meaning from the posts thanks
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 11, 2017 20:51:22 GMT -5
hi I'm kinda new I know you guys have been at this a long time but I'm having just a little trouble with the abbreviations you use and wondered if you could give me a hint about them? I can go to google or wherever and read to catch up just don't know what keywords to use. The two I'm especially interested from reading various threads are 'CC' and 'SR'. These seem very interesting but I haven't quite been able to infer the meaning from the posts thanks Hi and welcome to the forum, MW! CC is referring to a Cosmic Consciousness experience, and SR is short for Self-Realization. There's a special thread with all the acronyms and abbreviations we regularly use here. Check it out: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4927/list-common-acronyms-abbreviations-forumIf you want to know something specific, just ask or start a thread. R
|
|
|
Post by steven on Aug 14, 2017 14:10:37 GMT -5
Thanks Reefs, I think this is needed. It seems the SR people place all the emphasis on unity. So it seems the real question is, then why the diversity? It seems Unity has gone through a lot of trouble to form this complex universe. For me, that's the question. Even on a very local level, your wave of the entire ocean so to speak, you are a Universe unto yourself. There is only one "you" wave on the ocean...and you might say that as a unit, everything occuring in that "wave" on the Ocean is ONE on a local level. "You" are creating diversity within yourself continuously...every thought you have, every activity, every experience, every pursuit of adesire, every emotion, every question, everything that occurs from the seat of your sphere of influence is "you" on a local level adding and creating diversity within the oneness of your personal experience. Why do you do it? Why do you do anything that you do? What are your personal motivations? Answer that and you will have the presice "reason" for the diversity within the oneness of the entire Universe. The reason that the Universe goes to all the 'trouble' of forming all this complexity out of and within this oneness is the very same reason that you got out of bed this morning, pursuid your interests, engaged in self reflection, and made this inquiry. What IS in the micro also IS in the macro
|
|
|
Post by steven on Aug 14, 2017 14:28:49 GMT -5
Jed wrote that solipsism was an auspicious mental position. But this is only the case if the "solipsist" is genuinely open and has sincerely suspended their conceptual certainty about their conclusions. There is a stark difference between not-knowing .. vs .. being certain that one can never know. This certainty can be either conscious in the forefront of one's mind, or -- in the most extreme case -- unconscious and even denied in the same breath as it's expressed. Solipsism is bullet-proof as a philosophy, and the smug self-satisfaction of a debate victory on the topic is an excellent sign that there's no sincerity involved in the purported not-knowing. Describing one's experience as "I treat figgymints 'as if' they were real" is a clear absurdity that comes about from the material effects of accepting that philosophy. Lucid dreamers make the point that the experience of the existence of others can't be trusted. The idea is that a dream person -- a figgymint -- can seem just as "real" in the night dream as your spouse in the "waking dream". This point is undeniable, and one doesn't even have to have much (or really, any) experience lucid dreaming to understand that it is a profound one. But this cuts both ways. Does the lucid dreamer realize that they're dreaming when they suddenly and instantaneously beam a pink elephant with Spock ears into the middle of their living room? The dream/waking dichotomy demonstrates that illusion is a "real" thingy, and can ultimately be discerned from the actual. It also places the seeker in the double-bind of having no experiential method of confronting that illusion ... is their current experience a lie or the truth? Does the figgymint lie when he or she says that they love you? When the illusion of the personal self has been penetrated, there's no longer any question about the pointer that the same consciousness looks through every pair of eyes. It doesn't matter that self-evidence can never apply to the "other", but this can't be explained, and this position has no intellectual defense. It can only be known, non-conceptually. Until then, that pointer will constantly rouse a particular form of the existential question. The result of approaching the existential queston with intellect is an endless circular debate. That debate will rage for as long as the unanswered question is given attention, regardless of whether or not the debate is externalized. This is a further double-bind for the seeker, as the question will persist as a magnate for their attention until it is addressed. Its all a dream, all a made up illusion so to speak. Perhaps the most significant difference between what we accept as thecommon realityversus the individual'sdream is that in this common reality that we are alldreaming together weareoperating in a kind of "consesus" dream where the Laws of Nature and physics and other common beliefs create a Rosetta Stone of commonality from which we can interact with each other in this dream. Whereas in the individual dreams that we Descend into need no basis in common experience to interact with others from, so the Laws of Nature are not needed and typically do not hold sway. Some Laws of Nature still occur in our individual dreams though, because the individual dream is a bit like a dream within a dream, so some habitual carryover occurs often. But because the Laws of Nature in the common shared dream are also part of a dream, they can and sometimes are altered or suspended if there is enough consensus to do so. Very charismatic people like Jesus have shown a capacity to get enough people to participate with enough force of belief to suspend the accepted Laws of Nature breifly even in this common consensus dream. And of course, charismatic visionaries have shifted or pulled nearly the entire consensus reality dream in whole new or expanded directions throughout history.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 15, 2017 11:50:54 GMT -5
Okay, as promised, I'll continue with Seth's model of reality and how it relates to the nature of appearances:
The Seth Model Part 1 - Reality Systems and Frameworks
Seth basically distinguishes between 3 kinds of reality. There is a basic reality, a primary reality and then there's secondary realities. The world as we know it, this physical time-space-reality is just one many so-called reality-systems. Every reality-system has its own characteristic rules, or root assumptions. The rules that apply to every reality system out there are called primary. The rules that only apply to a specific reality-system are called secondary (or camouflage). And then there is basic reality or All-That-Is which is present in every reality-system and the source of any reality-system.
Reality-systems are based on agreements between those consciousnesses who are focused in these systems and 'inhabit' them. Basically, perceiving in a certain reality-system means co-creating in that system. Perception and creation can't be separated. And so the act of perception changes the perceiver and the perceived. The coordination of any secondary reality construction is done via telepathy between every consciousness that is involved in that particular reality.
Now, our physical universe that we perceive with our 5 physical senses is such a secondary reality system with certain root assumptions that don't apply to other reality-systems, like let's say our dream world. In the dream world as we know it, certain root assumptions that we are familiar with in the physical waking world don't actually apply here, like linear time. Which means the dream world reality-system allows for a greater degree of freedom in comparison to the waking world physical reality-system. Which means the dream world reality is much closer to basic reality than physical reality. We will call our physical waking world reality framework 1 and our dream world reality framework 2 and the basic reality framework 3.
An important point here, however, that will apply to all following distinctions and lines drawn: this is all for the sake of discussion only. In reality, these distinctions are arbitrary and don't exist as such. But they are necessary for this discussion or else the conscious mind can't make sense of it.
Now, what does 'real' mean? This obviously depends on our perspective in a specific reality-system and its characteristic root assumptions. In the physical framework 1 realm, what is real is what can be perceived with the outer physical camouflage senses. In the dream world framework 2 realm, what is real is what can be perceived with the inner non-physical camouflage senses. Which means framework 2 can only be perceived with the inner senses. Framework 1, however, can be perceived with both the outer and the inner senses. And so framework 1 exists in this larger framework 2 which again exists in this even larger framework 3. So we have basically 3 kinds of 'real', 1) real according to the outer senses, 2) real according to the inner senses and 3) in framework 3 we can use our standard ND definition for 'real' - that which exists in its own right.
to be continued...
|
|
|
Post by steven on Aug 15, 2017 12:19:28 GMT -5
Okay, as promised, I'll continue with Seth's model of reality and how it relates to the nature of appearances: The Seth Model Part 1 - Reality Systems and Frameworks
Seth basically distinguishes between 3 kinds of reality. There is a basic reality, a primary reality and then there's secondary realities. The world as we know it, this physical time-space-reality is just one many so-called reality-systems. Every reality-system has its own characteristic rules, or root assumptions. The rules that apply to every reality system out there are called primary. The rules that only apply to a specific reality-system are called secondary (or camouflage). And then there is basic reality or All-That-Is which is present in every reality-system and the source of any reality-system. Reality-systems are based on agreements between those consciousnesses who are focused in these systems and 'inhabit' them. Basically, perceiving in a certain reality-system means co-creating in that system. Perception and creation can't be separated. And so the act of perception changes the perceiver and the perceived. The coordination of any secondary reality construction is done via telepathy between every consciousness that is involved in that particular reality. Now, our physical universe that we perceive with our 5 physical senses is such a secondary reality system with certain root assumptions that don't apply to other reality-systems, like let's say our dream world. In the dream world as we know it, certain root assumptions that we are familiar with in the physical waking world don't actually apply here, like linear time. Which means the dream world reality-system allows for a greater degree of freedom in comparison to the waking world physical reality-system. Which means the dream world reality is much closer to basic reality than physical reality. We will call our physical waking world reality framework 1 and our dream world reality framework 2 and the basic reality framework 3. An important point here, however, that will apply to all following distinctions and lines drawn: this is all for the sake of discussion only. In reality, these distinctions are arbitrary and don't exist as such. But they are necessary for this discussion or else the conscious mind can't make sense of it. Now, what does 'real' mean? This obviously depends on our perspective in a specific reality-system and its characteristic root assumptions. In the physical framework 1 realm, what is real is what can be perceived with the outer physical camouflage senses. In the dream world framework 2 realm, what is real is what can be perceived with the inner non-physical camouflage senses. Which means framework 2 can only be perceived with the inner senses. Framework 1, however, can be perceived with both the outer and the inner senses. And so framework 1 exists in this larger framework 2 which again exists in this even larger framework 3. So we have basically 3 kinds of 'real', 1) real according to the outer senses, 2) real according to the inner senses and 3) in framework 3 we can use our standard ND definition for 'real' - that which exists in its own right. to be continued... LoL Cool...he is saying what I said in different words...for example he uses the words 'reality systems' and we use 'Laws of Nature' as determined and maintained by a consensus of the Beings within a particular Consensus Dream.
|
|