Thought Forms the Basis of Perceptual Reality

[yahooyoda]

Conceptually speaking, from a purely materialistic standpoint, "objective reality" seems true enough, that we should not question it; but in truth, our objective realities are merely virtual reality creations of the mind and are actually subjective reflections, or shadows, of an ostensible *absolute world* beyond our senses. The only verification of this absolute reality is via consensus with other minds. Hence, the objective reality becomes an assumption, which relies on the confirmations of other observers. That means that in accordance with the scientific method, our objective reality, cannot be proved to be an independent absolute - only inferred to be an absolute, as possibly playing a particular role, in accordance with the statistical status quo.

We then come to the reductive realization that our ostensible - concensible objectification, assumes there exists a separation between object and subject, - "perceived and perceiver", but in truth, there isn't any separation. The only reality that we can ever know is the reality of perception, which is the reality of mind. Of course you may stub your toe, pronouncing to yourself that "it is satisfactorily refuted thus!" But pain is also a perception of mind.

All objects of perception require a uniform logically consistent substrate OF perception, meaning that all objects of perception require a uniform[consciously aware] mental template of subjectification. Thus if the objective world stability is perceived as it truly is, then the stability of the subjective is the same as the stability of the objective. Ergo, the objective and subjective reality forms a duality, reflecting the two sides of the same coin called awareness or consciousness. Raw awareness and consciousness forms the most basic aspect of reality. Pure existence becomes pure thought/consciousness.

[sue hindmarsh]

Talk about stodgy!

Yah, are you a public servant? Or training to be an academic? Or perhaps already an academic?

Are you making some point under all that mud?

Wait, I’ll get my shovel!

Conceptually speaking, from a purely materialistic standpoint, "objective reality" seems true enough, that we should not question it;

Reality seems real.

but in truth, our objective realities are merely virtual reality creations of the mind and are actually subjective reflections, or shadows, of an ostensible *absolute world* beyond our senses.

But you’re not sure.

The only verification of this absolute reality is via consensus with other minds. Hence, the objective reality becomes an assumption, which relies on the confirmations of other observers.

Your friends agree.

That means that in accordance with the scientific method, our objective reality, cannot be proved to be an independent absolute - only inferred to be an absolute, as possibly playing a particular role, in accordance with the statistical status quo.

Your mum and dad also agree.

We then come to the reductive realization that our ostensible - concensible objectification, assumes there exists a separation between object and subject, - "perceived and perceiver", but in truth, there isn't any separation. The only reality that we can ever know is the reality of perception, which is the reality of mind. Of course you may stub your toe, pronouncing to yourself that "it is satisfactorily refuted thus!" But pain is also a perception of mind.

But it doesn’t matter what THEY think - Reality is all in YOUR mind.

All objects of perception require a uniform logically consistent substrate OF perception, meaning that all objects of perception require a uniform[consciously aware] mental template of subjectification. Thus if the objective world stability is perceived as it truly is, then the stability of the subjective is the same as the stability of the objective. Ergo, the objective and subjective reality forms a duality, reflecting the two sides of the same coin called awareness or consciousness. Raw awareness and consciousness forms the most basic aspect of reality. Pure existence becomes pure thought/consciousness.

But you’re not really sure.

-

Ok - I think you're trying to say something about how 'things' are mental constructs.

Yes?

-

[Carl G]

Under the big words, Sue, what is he saying that is different from what you and most of us here believe or know to be true?

[sue hindmarsh]

Carl,

Is he?

I'm not sure he is saying anything at all.

-

You obviously were able to slosh through the sludge to come to the conclusion that he is saying something you consider "to be true", perhaps you'd give me your translation of his work.

-

[bert]

what he is saying is that there are layers of thought giving a multiplicity in identities all depending on one undifferentiated-ness formed by one existened consciousness ,because interaction is through medium.

[ChochemV2]

Sounds like a critique of "Ultimate Reality" to me...

Reality is accessed, interpreted and presented to us through our senses and even though there may be an "Absolute Reality" behind all of the mediums with which we are able to perceive reality we will never truly be able to know it.

Our perception of reality and reality itself are also intertwined in an almost Heisenbergian way. By simply looking at reality we change it.

The last paragraph I'm not really sure says anything but I could be wrong...

[cat10542]

"'What's reality anyway?' he asked himself, 'It's as finite as a bit of cheese, as tainted by error by anything else with limits.'" ~Frank Herbert, Santaroga Barrier

k, so that's the quote that made me realize a lot of the things just mentioned. That our sense of reality is based on perception. that perception is limited, thus we don't really know that reality is real. But that sanity is so to speak a shared sense of reality, that we converse with others to confirm our reality. Oh, and i do believe that an absolute reality exists beyond the confines of my limited perception, the Infinite. And I too have no idea what the last paragraph says, hmmm.

[Cory Duchesne]

I think the crux of the issue here is whether or not perception/experience of distinction is created by thought. I don't think so. I think perception/experience of distinction is remembered(recorded) by thought, but not created.

[bert]

in the last paragraph he talks about the subject-object relationship which really is the Ego-Id complex that points to our experience appearance and NOW phases of the Self his expulsion as Matter(body considered as one) refracted through the Mind(Tao).

the appearance coming together with the now indicates the transference of belief from subconscious to conscious immediate intuitive awareness.

pure existence becomes pure thought/consciousness because Self is conceptless and free,it is increative - it is Tao.
so in time-space the interplay of the dual role of ego and id constitutes a symbolic "rehearsal of reality".

[bert]

hence,Schiller's quote:in error only is there life and knowledge must be death.

hence, Nietzsche's quote: the belief in external things is one of the necessary errors of mankind.
hence, Nietzsche's quote: our external world is a product of the fantasy.

hence, Dali's quote: the real is an epiphenomenon of thought, a result of non-thought, a phenomenon of amnesia. the true real is within us and we project it.


the phenomenal is the positivistic fiction of thought, the elaborate negation of reality.

[Carl G]

Translation for Sue:

Conceptually speaking, from a purely materialistic standpoint, "objective reality" seems true enough, that we should not question it;

Physical Reality looks physical and real.

but in truth, our objective realities are merely virtual reality creations of the mind and are actually subjective reflections, or shadows, of an ostensible *absolute world* beyond our senses.

But actually, and necessarily because we experience everything through our senses, what we perceive is simply perceptions.

The only verification of this absolute reality is via consensus with other minds.

Evidence that there is an objective reality "out there" is that multiple people perceive the same thing.

Hence, the objective reality becomes an assumption, which relies on the confirmations of other observers. That means that in accordance with the scientific method, our objective reality, cannot be proved to be an independent absolute - only inferred to be an absolute, as possibly playing a particular role, in accordance with the statistical status quo.

This sort of evidence, is circumstantial, however, and therefore does not constitute proof.

We then come to the reductive realization that our ostensible - concensible objectification, assumes there exists a separation between object and subject, - "perceived and perceiver",

But this evidence can lead us to realize there may be two realities: a subjective one (our personal perspective) and an objective one (what may be actually "out there").

but in truth, there isn't any separation.

Of course, the base truth is that ALL IS ONE.

The only reality that we can ever know is the reality of perception, which is the reality of mind. Of course you may stub your toe, pronouncing to yourself that "it is satisfactorily refuted thus!" But pain is also a perception of mind.

But as far as understanding objective truth, we're kind of trapped, being that everything we perceive is done through our sensing apparatus, which includes the mind. Is it possible to get around this?

All objects of perception require a uniform logically consistent substrate OF perception, meaning that all objects of perception require a uniform[consciously aware] mental template of subjectification.

The only possible way for a person to approach viewing objective reality accurately (objectively) is through developing his/her consciousness (being) into a stable (consistent) and highly tuned (aware) instrument.

Thus if the objective world stability is perceived as it truly is, then the stability of the subjective is the same as the stability of the objective.

If a person can do this, then subjective perception obviously becomes objective. In other words, there is no longer a subjective (or, as QRS might put it, delusional -- driven by ignorance and ego) world view.

Ergo, the objective and subjective reality forms a duality, reflecting the two sides of the same coin called awareness or consciousness.

Delusion and truth form a definite duality in the world, in people. They are two ways of seeing and being each and every experience. The common way is mere sensory perception, or simple awareness, whereas the path to deeper knowledge, of objective reality, is by developing consciousness (involving thinking and logic).

Raw awareness and consciousness forms the most basic aspect of reality.

Again, delusion and truth can be seen as the basis of the the duality of the human experience.

Pure existence becomes pure thought/consciousness.

The path out of that duality leads to enlightenment.

[Carl G]

Carl,

You obviously were able to slosh through the sludge to come to the conclusion that he is saying something you consider "to be true"

No, I was just saying I thought what was said there, though verbose, was along the lines of the philosophy on this board.

I wasn't actually defending any of it, per se.