|
Post by laughter on Aug 15, 2017 20:14:58 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. This idea of a "consensus dream" is just a particular version of a shared objective reality. If someone turns away from that, and also adopts a world-view based on oneness, then they naturally wind up with a question similar to "what are these others?". It's just a natural progression from "what is this Consciousness?". Now, combine that with self-evidence, and it's clear that the individual in this situation can never know from what appears to them whether the other people appearing to them perceive and feel in the same way. By this, I mean: whatever the source and the mechanism by which these appearances of inanimate objects appear might also be the same source and mechanism by which the animated appearances appear. Put bluntly, as you've said, it's all an illusion, so how can we discern whether or not the other people in that illusion are just more illusion? As a philosophy, this position is bullet proof -- sort of the inverse of a self-defeating life strategy .. like, say, doubling down on a gamble to win back a loss. No matter what evidence you offer, it's countered with the notion that the evidence is a product of "Consciousness", just like any other product of "Consciousness". Really, it's just another way of saying that self-inquiry can't be answered objectively with the tools of empiricism and observation. Now, these questions -- and different forms of them, can be answered. Experience won't provide a direct and concrete answer no more than any philosophy can. But if one gets honest with themselves about where they are, and remains genuinely open and is intensely sincere about the questioning, then the existential merry-go-round can stop spinning. There's a potential trap for a person in this position who insists that the question has no answer. In that case they're no longer "not knowing", but are instead certain that they can never know.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 16, 2017 5:46:54 GMT -5
The Seth Model Part 2 - Physical Objects and Matter
As already mentioned, every reality-system has its own characteristic root assumptions, sorta like rules of engagement. The main root assumptions of our physical system are linear consecutive time, 3D space and material objects that appear solid and static. That's the physical camouflage.
Now, material objects are made of matter. From what our physical senses can tell us, matter is solid and 'dead'. What our scientist have found out, however, is that matter isn't really as solid as we think. In fact, a material object like a chair doesn't really exist as the solid and static object that we perceive. It is actually made of tiny little particles that are constantly in motion. And it gets even better. Even those particles consist of smaller particles still. And these particles of particles consist of even smaller particles again and so on ad infinitum, it seems. So in that sense, solidity goes out the window rather quickly. What Seth tells us is that this destruction into smaller and smaller particles doesn't actually go on ad infinitum. There are indeed indestructible 'particles', Seth calls them basic units of consciousness or CU's. These are the basic building blocks of all reality-systems.
As the name already implies, these CU's are conscious and have their own identity, and so they are actually self-conscious. When these CU's combine, they form other gestalts and reality-systems which all have their own identities. But at the same time, CU's retain their own identity. So what we call matter or material objects is just a conglomeration of CU's at its most basic level, the level of basic reality, framework 3. And so in that sense, 'dead' matter goes out the window as well.
Before we get something like physical matter, however, we first have something that Seth calls pseudo-matter. Physical matter is what the physical realm is made of, i.e. framework 1. Pseudo-matter is what the non-physical dream world realm is made of, i.e. framework 2. Now, since before physical matter there exists pseudo-matter, then it follows that before physical objects in framework 1 exist, there exist pseudo-objects in framework 2. And so framework 1 is created from and sustained by framework 2.
As already mentioned, these distinctions between frameworks more or less arbitrary and only made for the sake of this discussion. In reality, there is no actual point where framework 1 ends and framework 2 starts. In fact, framework 1 and framework 2 are intertwined. This actually applies to any reality-system. There are no closed systems. They are all interconnected and influence each other and actually rely on each other. So-called closed systems exist in appearance only. And so the dream world exists within the physical world and vice versa. This planet earth, for example, is actually shared by numerous other reality systems and beings from other reality-systems. But their root assumptions are all different and so they normally don't perceive each other.
Now back to basic reality. Every consciousness creates its own reality. Reality-systems as mass realities are therefore mass creations, where different consciousnesses co-create with each other. This co-creation is organized via telepathy. As already mentioned, there is no separation. There are open channels everywhere. Another characteristic of every consciousness is its drive for value fulfillment (see Seth quotes thread). This applies to every consciousness, be it a CU, a particle, an atom, a rock, a cell, an organ, a human being, a planet, a galaxy or whatever. And so CU's following this drive for value fulfillment (which is basically just the drive of All-That-Is to experience and know itself) constantly combine into new gestalts and open new avenues of experience. That's how we get atoms, cells and human beings, all sorts of beings and reality-systems.
Now, specific reality-systems exist in order to give a specific kind of experience, based on a specific kind of focus or consciousness. Our physical reality-system, framework 1, requires an intense focus which gives a very limited experience in terms of scope but a very rich experience in terms of density or intensity. On the other hand, experience in framework 2 doesn't require such an intense focus and therefore experience there is not that dense and limited. Objects in framework 2 are therefore lacking the kind of solidity and stability that are so characteristic for material objects as we know them.
To be continued.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 16, 2017 21:07:57 GMT -5
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. Yes, it's similar to what you've said there. Especially what you've said about certain laws of the waking state still being operational in the dream state. But comparing dream state reality with waking state reality is tricky business because as Seth says every dream we remember in the waking state is already an interpretation into physical symbolism. If that wouldn't be so, the conscious mind couldn't deal with it. I'm not really a fan of the dream metaphor because it usually refers to dreams as we typically look at them from inside the physical reality system with our physical senses, i.e. dreams having no real substance behind it. Which would be a fatal conclusion. I'm fine though with the dream metaphor in the sense that everything that is manifested, no matter in what reality-system, is only a symbol of something else, different faces of basic reality. Because then questions about the nature of other people and things in our experience shouldn't even arise. The 'streaming consciousness' metaphor is also a good one.
|
|
|
Post by steven on Aug 17, 2017 0:47:47 GMT -5
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. Yes, it's similar to what you've said there. Especially what you've said about certain laws of the waking state still being operational in the dream state. But comparing dream state reality with waking state reality is tricky business because as Seth says every dream we remember in the waking state is already an interpretation into physical symbolism. If that wouldn't be so, the conscious mind couldn't deal with it. I'm not really a fan of the dream metaphor because it usually refers to dreams as we typically look at them from inside the physical reality system with our physical senses, i.e. dreams having no real substance behind it. Which would be a fatal conclusion. I'm fine though with the dream metaphor in the sense that everything that is manifested, no matter in what reality-system, is only a symbol of something else, different faces of basic reality. Because then questions about the nature of other people and things in our experience shouldn't even arise. The 'streaming consciousness' metaphor is also a good one. Agreed...accept that I am not sure that everything we percieve in this spectrum of perception is a symble forsomething else...sometimes things are just their own creation and their own reason for being i think years ago I said here that we create at the moment of, and by observation, and that the senses were alljust an occurrence of mind movement and what we sense we are creating. i was reading a bit of the Seth Material today and it seems he is saying something similar. i often say that we himans are the "hands of god", and by that I mean that we are the means, the mechanism by which god creates. The Seth Material reminded me of something very powerful and beautiful today though, that I had not turned my attention to in a long time, when they talked about EVERYTHING percieved being embued with conciousness. Even seemingly inanimate objects. they are all embued with my own conciousness in a way that is palpable and alive if one simply turns their attention to it. pretty neat stuff....I might try bending a spoon later 😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by muddywaters on Aug 17, 2017 18:49:45 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. it is kinda like wearing clothes I think... when going into the consensus reality we don some 'heavy' outfits just to be able to have lots of commonality with each other... at the cost that it limits our own freedom of expression while insulating us from the fact of the reality we wish to be a part of. Someone like christ might have simply gotten rid of some of the clothing... although I imagine that would be lonely... but anyway in this metaphor dream outfits wouldn't be nearly as heavy but like you said that may be simply because we aren't really relating as much in dreams as we do here.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 19, 2017 11:24:42 GMT -5
Seth Model Part 3 - Physical beings and personalities/selves
This intense focus that is required in order to perceive physical objects as static and stable, in a 3D space and linear consecutive time manner is the work of the ego. In that sense, the ego is basically just a perspective, a very specific kind of focus of perceiving basic reality - like a special camera lens. And so our physical objects are actually just the the 3D face of basic reality in a linear time frame.
Our 'normal' identity in framework 1 is the ego, i.e. perspective 1. The ego, the intellect, the physical/outer senses and the physical body go together. That's what we usually identify with as physical beings. Nevertheless, our dreams do give us hints that there's more to our self than just this mere physical aspect. There is also a non-physical side of our self, hidden from the physical senses. In fact, the non-physical part of our self is the actual core self. The physical part is just the tip of the iceberg. This non-physical part Seth calls the inner ego or the inner self. The inner self does not exist in time and space. It exists in framework 2. It only projects a part of itself into time and space (framework 1) as ego or outer self (perspective 1). The ego is therefore an extension of the inner self. The world of the inner self cannot be perceived with the outer senses (perspective 1). Only the effects that the inner world of the inner self has on physical reality can be perceived with the outer senses. And so to the ego, framework 1 is the real world, the world of facts and framework 2 is the surreal world, the wold of fiction.
The inner counterpart of the outer senses are the inner senses which - exactly like the inner self - are not bound by time and space. The outer senses are only of use in the physical reality-system and can only perceive the physical reality-system. The inner senses, however, can be used in any reality-system and can perceive any reality system. And so from perspective 1, framework 1 is real because it can be perceived directly with the outer senses, but framework 2 is fiction, because it cannot be perceived directly with the outer senses. Form perspective 2, however, framework 1 and framework 2 are equally real because they both can be perceived directly.
The outer self and the inner self together form a self, or a personality as Seth calls it. Selves are multi-dimensional, they exist in many reality-systems simultaneously. A personality or self usually has several sub-personalities. And so in reality a self is just a collection of numerous such sub-personalities. As a general rule, usually only one personality is focused in the physical reality-system. That's the ego. The other parts are not active in the physical realm. Those are other (probable) egos. I'll get back to this later.
The boundaries of a self are set by identity - which is forever changing. Which means the boundaries of a self are also forever changing. A collection of numerous selves forms an entity, or soul. The soul or entity, again, is also held together by identity, which again is constantly changing. A collection of numerous entities again forms an even larger energy gestalt which again is part of an even larger energy gestalt or identity and so on.
But no matter how neatly we divide All-That-Is, it should be understood that oneness is always the case and so there are no clear lines where the ego ends and the inner self begins, or where the self ends and the entity begins etc. These are arbitrary distinctions made only for the sake of discussion. And so, since there are no clear lines, there are no actual limits to the self. Selves are unlimited. We could even say that, theoretically, there are no limits to the ego either.
As already mentioned, Framework 1 is created from framework 2 - from the inside out so to speak. Which means the inner self created the ego, the outer senses, the physical body and the physical environment with it's physical objects. In that sense the ego is not the doer. The ego doesn't do the creating. This is one of the reasons why as soon as we stop looking at the Moon, the Moon doesn't just disappear. It's still there. When we close our physical eyes, the physical world is still there. Even when we leave the physical world and are not focused there anymore, it will still be there, because the physical world is the result of mass creation. Even our dream world is the result of mass creation to a large degree. There is a shared mass dream environment that we share with every consciousness that is focused in the physical reality-system and where every physically focused consciousness is in contact with each other and also with consciousnesses that not focused in the non-physical. This is the realm where telepathy rules. The other reason has something to do with probable realities and value fulfillment and the nature of energy which I will explain later. That the ego isn't the doer doesn't mean, however, that the ego is redundant. The ego (or conscious mind) actually plays an important role in deliberate creation equation (aka free will) as it relates to the physical realm. This is often forgotten.
To be continued.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 19, 2017 14:11:03 GMT -5
This is one of the reasons why as soon as we stop looking at the Moon, the Moon doesn't just disappear. It's still there. When we close our physical eyes, the physical world is still there. Even when we leave the physical world and are not focused there anymore, it will still be there, because the physical world is the result of mass creation. Bingo with a cherry on top . The notion that the moon disappears when we no longer perceive it is just pants .
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 19, 2017 22:14:25 GMT -5
This is one of the reasons why as soon as we stop looking at the Moon, the Moon doesn't just disappear. It's still there. When we close our physical eyes, the physical world is still there. Even when we leave the physical world and are not focused there anymore, it will still be there, because the physical world is the result of mass creation. Bingo with a cherry on top . The notion that the moon disappears when we no longer perceive it is just pants . Notice also that our solipsists are actually suggesting that there is something like unconscious consciousness and that the whole is less than its parts, not to mention a belief in actual separation as a cherry on top.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 20, 2017 7:26:58 GMT -5
Bingo with a cherry on top . The notion that the moon disappears when we no longer perceive it is just pants . Notice also that our solipsists are actually suggesting that there is something like unconscious consciousness and that the whole is less than its parts, not to mention a belief in actual separation as a cherry on top. Well, in my opinion you'd be unlikely to get consensus among the solipsists on your phrasing of those ideas. I think one of the most ironic things about the solipsist position is that despite the commonality there seems to be as many detailed takes on it as there are peeps who embrace the idea. This notion of multiple perspectives keeping the Moon aloft was certainly the way I reconciled the question for a time when I was seeking. The idea is that somewhere, somewhen, someone was (or will be, for as long as it exists) looking at the Moon, and the consciousness that created the appearance didn't have to be human, and even when there were no living things, our projection of the paths of the inanimate objects back through time are just what would match what we see today in terms of the tides and the craters, etc .. This is what I meant by that I would have argued from a misinformed position on the solipsist question. While it's not as detailed as your Seth-based explanation, it shares the characteristic of thinking of "Consciousness" as singular. But the solipsist counterpoint is that it conceives of that "Consciousness" as fragmented: it carries the implication that the individual perspectives are somehow creative in their perception. I'm not deep enough into the Seth-material inner/outer ego concept yet to write to the details of where you're coming from, it's going to take some more reading and digesting. But for now I'll stick with my bottom-line impression that while some of the Seth material is obviously insightful, it's a way of describing how things manifest. The problem with trying to explain away solipsism with this kind of description is that you're providing a material answer to the existential question. Ultimately the way out of solipsism isn't a new philosophy, but in laying down the tool of the intellect in trying to answer that underlying existential question. Maybe I'll eventually revisit your invitation to nail down the definition of an appearance, but these days I don't resolve the question of the Moon that way anymore. If someone were to bring it up to me in conversation I might float the idea just to establish a rapport, but what I'd want to emphasize instead is the opportunity that this sort of question presents, and suggest that it's a problem they'll never solve. No matter how you define an appearance, it involves the duality of the seer and the seen. The existential question is baked into the cake, and the solipsist is in an auspicious position if they've accepted that no appearance has any inherent reality of it's own -- but only if they remain in genuine and open not-knowing. In my opinion, "mass shared creation" is going the wrong way in that it offers a new vision that just recycles and repackages the idea of an objective physical reality. Regardless of how expansively the Seth material defines inner-ego and personality, the soul concept leaves us with the notion of a multiplicity of souls. There's great beauty and power in the question "am I One, or am I one of Many?", but only if all possible mind-answers are set aside. As Sekida wrote, (among others), " reality is neither subjective nor objective". I think this notion is echoed to some extent in ZD's Brown quote on "scientific duplicity": In contrast, how does "mass shared creation" ultimately differ from Tzu's "both/and" concept? "Both/and" can be either a useful pointer or a material misconception, but, in the end, the meaning is subjective. "Neither/nor", on the other hand, is unambiguous, and leaves the intellect with no ground left to stand. The implied question about the "consciousness" of "inanimate objects" is clearly intellect in overdrive on a road it doesn't belong. Be that as it may, it was covered (albeit, indirectly) quite elegantly by Heisenberg, and I have to thank the 'pilgrim for pointing that out and piquing my curiosity about what it was exactly that he wrote. His position has been, to my eye, both extrapolated and misinterpreted as basis for new-age thinking, which has propagated solipsism as a popular and largely subconscious cultural edifice. Perhaps I'll write in more detail about that in the QM thread.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 20, 2017 8:42:20 GMT -5
Great post, Laughter! Well, in my opinion you'd be unlikely to get consensus among the solipsists on your phrasing of those ideas. I think one of the most ironic things about the solipsist position is that despite the commonality there seems to be as many detailed takes on it as there are peeps who embrace the idea. Yes, absolutely. That's why I said 'our' solipsists. When I use the word solipsist in this thread I am referring to the solipsists on this forum in past discussions. This notion of multiple perspectives keeping the Moon aloft was certainly the way I reconciled the question for a time when I was seeking. The idea is that somewhere, somewhen, someone was (or will be, for as long as it exists) looking at the Moon, and the consciousness that created the appearance didn't have to be human, and even when there were no living things, our projection of the paths of the inanimate objects back through time are just what would match what we see today in terms of the tides and the craters, etc .. As I've explained, there are several reasons why the Moon doesn't disappear. This is just one of the more obvious ones, but by far not the main reason. This has more to do with the nature of energy and consciousness. The short answer is that energy cannot be destroyed and thoughts cannot be taken back. Once it's out there, it's out there and will run it's own course - no matter if it's just a thought or a solar system. I'll get back to this in one of my next essays on the Seth Model. This is also at the root of probable realities. This is what I meant by that I would have argued from a misinformed position on the solipsist question. While it's not as detailed as your Seth-based explanation, it shares the characteristic of thinking of "Consciousness" as singular. But the solipsist counterpoint is that it conceives of that "Consciousness" as fragmented: it carries the implication that the individual perspectives are somehow creative in their perception. I'm not deep enough into the Seth-material inner/outer ego concept yet to write to the details of where you're coming from, it's going to take some more reading and digesting. But for now I'll stick with my bottom-line impression that while some of the Seth material is obviously insightful, it's a way of describing how things manifest. The problem with trying to explain away solipsism with this kind of description is that you're providing a material answer to the existential question. Ultimately the way out of solipsism isn't a new philosophy, but in laying down the tool of the intellect in trying to answer that underlying existential question. You are absolutely right about a necessary digestion period. Remember, it took me over a year to get to this point! A few months of reading a dozen books and then several months doing nothing. Knowing the A-H material very well was definitely of help. We have to keep it simple. Solipsism, as you have noted, is not going to be defeated intellectually. What we have to keep in mind is that you can't arrive at solipsism from perspective 2, i.e. direct knowing and oneness. So in order to defeat solipsism you just have to point at the source of solipsism - perspective 1. It's a purely intellectual position, based on deduction and a belief in separation. I am going to show this with the help of the Seth model. If that will convince our solipsists is a different story though. Because there has also been the issue of honesty (or lack thereof). Maybe I'll eventually revisit your invitation to nail down the definition of an appearance, but these days I don't resolve the question of the Moon that way anymore. If someone were to bring it up to me in conversation I might float the idea just to establish a rapport, but what I'd want to emphasize instead is the opportunity that this sort of question presents, and suggest that it's a problem they'll never solve. No matter how you define an appearance, it involves the duality of the seer and the seen. The existential question is baked into the cake, and the solipsist is in an auspicious position if they've accepted that no appearance has any inherent reality of it's own -- but only if they remain in genuine and open not-knowing. I'll get back to appearances and how all this fits into our standard ND model when I'm done with those essays on the Seth Model. What I can say so far is that we have to be very careful with context. In my opinion, "mass shared creation" is going the wrong way in that it offers a new vision that just recycles and repackages the idea of an objective physical reality. Regardless of how expansively the Seth material defines inner-ego and personality, the soul concept leaves us with the notion of a multiplicity of souls. There's great beauty and power in the question "am I One, or am I one of Many?", but only if all possible mind-answers are set aside. As Sekida wrote, (among others), " reality is neither subjective nor objective". I think this notion is echoed to some extent in ZD's Brown quote on "scientific duplicity": In contrast, how does "mass shared creation" ultimately differ from Tzu's "both/and" concept? "Both/and" can be either a useful pointer or a material misconception, but, in the end, the meaning is subjective. "Neither/nor", on the other hand, is unambiguous, and leaves the intellect with no ground left to stand. The implied question about the "consciousness" of "inanimate objects" is clearly intellect in overdrive on a road it doesn't belong. Be that as it may, it was covered (albeit, indirectly) quite elegantly by Heisenberg, and I have to thank the 'pilgrim for pointing that out and piquing my curiosity about what it was exactly that he wrote. His position has been, to my eye, both extrapolated and misinterpreted as basis for new-age thinking, which has propagated solipsism as a popular and largely subconscious cultural edifice. Perhaps I'll write in more detail about that in the QM thread. I'll get back to the QM thread when I'm done with this appearance stuff. Seth has some interesting insights on atoms and particles and stars and black holes etc.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2017 23:28:55 GMT -5
Great post, Laughter! Well, in my opinion you'd be unlikely to get consensus among the solipsists on your phrasing of those ideas. I think one of the most ironic things about the solipsist position is that despite the commonality there seems to be as many detailed takes on it as there are peeps who embrace the idea. Yes, absolutely. That's why I said 'our' solipsists. When I use the word solipsist in this thread I am referring to the solipsists on this forum in past discussions. This notion of multiple perspectives keeping the Moon aloft was certainly the way I reconciled the question for a time when I was seeking. The idea is that somewhere, somewhen, someone was (or will be, for as long as it exists) looking at the Moon, and the consciousness that created the appearance didn't have to be human, and even when there were no living things, our projection of the paths of the inanimate objects back through time are just what would match what we see today in terms of the tides and the craters, etc .. As I've explained, there are several reasons why the Moon doesn't disappear. This is just one of the more obvious ones, but by far not the main reason. This has more to do with the nature of energy and consciousness. The short answer is that energy cannot be destroyed and thoughts cannot be taken back. Once it's out there, it's out there and will run it's own course - no matter if it's just a thought or a solar system. I'll get back to this in one of my next essays on the Seth Model. This is also at the root of probable realities. This is what I meant by that I would have argued from a misinformed position on the solipsist question. While it's not as detailed as your Seth-based explanation, it shares the characteristic of thinking of "Consciousness" as singular. But the solipsist counterpoint is that it conceives of that "Consciousness" as fragmented: it carries the implication that the individual perspectives are somehow creative in their perception. I'm not deep enough into the Seth-material inner/outer ego concept yet to write to the details of where you're coming from, it's going to take some more reading and digesting. But for now I'll stick with my bottom-line impression that while some of the Seth material is obviously insightful, it's a way of describing how things manifest. The problem with trying to explain away solipsism with this kind of description is that you're providing a material answer to the existential question. Ultimately the way out of solipsism isn't a new philosophy, but in laying down the tool of the intellect in trying to answer that underlying existential question. You are absolutely right about a necessary digestion period. Remember, it took me over a year to get to this point! A few months of reading a dozen books and then several months doing nothing. Knowing the A-H material very well was definitely of help. We have to keep it simple. Solipsism, as you have noted, is not going to be defeated intellectually. What we have to keep in mind is that you can't arrive at solipsism from perspective 2, i.e. direct knowing and oneness. So in order to defeat solipsism you just have to point at the source of solipsism - perspective 1. It's a purely intellectual position, based on deduction and a belief in separation. I am going to show this with the help of the Seth model. If that will convince our solipsists is a different story though. Because there has also been the issue of honesty (or lack thereof). Maybe I'll eventually revisit your invitation to nail down the definition of an appearance, but these days I don't resolve the question of the Moon that way anymore. If someone were to bring it up to me in conversation I might float the idea just to establish a rapport, but what I'd want to emphasize instead is the opportunity that this sort of question presents, and suggest that it's a problem they'll never solve. No matter how you define an appearance, it involves the duality of the seer and the seen. The existential question is baked into the cake, and the solipsist is in an auspicious position if they've accepted that no appearance has any inherent reality of it's own -- but only if they remain in genuine and open not-knowing. I'll get back to appearances and how all this fits into our standard ND model when I'm done with those essays on the Seth Model. What I can say so far is that we have to be very careful with context. In my opinion, "mass shared creation" is going the wrong way in that it offers a new vision that just recycles and repackages the idea of an objective physical reality. Regardless of how expansively the Seth material defines inner-ego and personality, the soul concept leaves us with the notion of a multiplicity of souls. There's great beauty and power in the question "am I One, or am I one of Many?", but only if all possible mind-answers are set aside. As Sekida wrote, (among others), " reality is neither subjective nor objective". I think this notion is echoed to some extent in ZD's Brown quote on "scientific duplicity": In contrast, how does "mass shared creation" ultimately differ from Tzu's "both/and" concept? "Both/and" can be either a useful pointer or a material misconception, but, in the end, the meaning is subjective. "Neither/nor", on the other hand, is unambiguous, and leaves the intellect with no ground left to stand. The implied question about the "consciousness" of "inanimate objects" is clearly intellect in overdrive on a road it doesn't belong. Be that as it may, it was covered (albeit, indirectly) quite elegantly by Heisenberg, and I have to thank the 'pilgrim for pointing that out and piquing my curiosity about what it was exactly that he wrote. His position has been, to my eye, both extrapolated and misinterpreted as basis for new-age thinking, which has propagated solipsism as a popular and largely subconscious cultural edifice. Perhaps I'll write in more detail about that in the QM thread. I'll get back to the QM thread when I'm done with this appearance stuff. Seth has some interesting insights on atoms and particles and stars and black holes etc. Yes, solipsism is a purely intellectual position arrived at by way of reasoning. For many of us these mental positions are (or, at least, were) quite relevant to our day-to-day and minute-to-minute experience. And even most of those who've never taken this sort of intellectual walk have more in common with thinker-peeps than they might first imagine, it's just that the ideas that underlay their worldviews and impact their thoughts and reactions are for the most part so deep in their psyche as to be overlooked, and just happening subconsciously. The objective material realism of the consensus trance is the elephant in that room. Even the solipsist has to reconcile their mental position with the convincing nature of sensory experience, and align themselves with the way most peeps think: .. "I act as if appearances are real". What philosophical and rational secular thinking have in common with mystical and religious thinking is the possibility of arriving at the end of the mind rope. Adyashanti described the "only process of mind with any power" as one that moves directly outward until it reaches that limit. And then stops. Yes, of course we have to be careful with context. Maybe someone can eventually explain it some day. But until then, it's interesting to note that any thinker that arrives at that limit by thinking will state things in existentially conflated terms. Take Spence' for example: Where he invites mind to keep churning into a context mix is really obvious to me here, as is just the right pointer to decline the invitation. The appearance doesn't appear without awareness of the appearance, but "that which is aware" of the appearance isn't a "that" at all, and of course, never makes an appearence.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 22, 2017 5:23:41 GMT -5
Bingo with a cherry on top . The notion that the moon disappears when we no longer perceive it is just pants . Notice also that our solipsists are actually suggesting that there is something like unconscious consciousness and that the whole is less than its parts, not to mention a belief in actual separation as a cherry on top. There defo seems a get out of jail free card by what some suppose / suggest what they don't know or can't know or don't understand It's like saying something that can't be questioned so that makes it somehow right lol . Lets make something up about something and call that something, something that can't be questioned . Then apply that unquestionable something in relation to everything I say ... ...
|
|
|
Post by zin on Aug 22, 2017 8:18:46 GMT -5
Seth Model Part 3 - Physical beings and personalities/selves................. The other reason has something to do with probable realities and value fulfillment and the nature of energy which I will explain later. That the ego isn't the doer doesn't mean, however, that the ego is redundant. The ego (or conscious mind) actually plays an important role in deliberate creation equation (aka free will) as it relates to the physical realm. This is often forgotten. To be continued. I got curious about the nature of energy part! Especially whether it will include different 'types' of energy. (I guess not, but still I am interested)
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 22, 2017 10:52:28 GMT -5
Seth Model Part 3 - Physical beings and personalities/selves................. The other reason has something to do with probable realities and value fulfillment and the nature of energy which I will explain later. That the ego isn't the doer doesn't mean, however, that the ego is redundant. The ego (or conscious mind) actually plays an important role in deliberate creation equation (aka free will) as it relates to the physical realm. This is often forgotten. To be continued. I got curious about the nature of energy part! Especially whether it will include different 'types' of energy. (I guess not, but still I am interested) Re 'types' of energy: there is energy and then there is pure energy.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 22, 2017 11:20:15 GMT -5
Notice also that our solipsists are actually suggesting that there is something like unconscious consciousness and that the whole is less than its parts, not to mention a belief in actual separation as a cherry on top. There defo seems a get out of jail free card by what some suppose / suggest what they don't know or can't know or don't understand It's like saying something that can't be questioned so that makes it somehow right lol . Lets make something up about something and call that something, something that can't be questioned . Then apply that unquestionable something in relation to everything I say ... ... IOW, mind playing with itself. Questions like "How can you arrive from 'everything is an appearance in consciousness' at 'everything that appears is conscious'? give it away already. Faction 1 starts with 'everything is an appearance in consciousness' and faction 2 starts with 'everything that appears is conscious'. Big difference! One statement reveals an abstraction, one statement reveals direct knowing. Hint: nouns are total abstractions. Because Faction 1 starts with an abstraction, they are naturally assuming faction 2 did the same but arrived at a wrong conclusion. Hence questions like: How did you get from all is consciousness to all is conscious? Well, nothing like that ever happened! ETA: The real issue here is an incomplete realization. On the one hand, it has been realized that the Self is all there is. On the other hand, it hasn't been realized yet what the nature of Self actually is. And so mind has been trying to fill in the gaps in order to make the picture complete. Which then leads to concepts like unconscious/consciousless consciousness (i.e. the term consciousness has been assassinated and rendered meaningless - and now you've got your out of jail free card!).
|
|