Is our reality just a construction?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
gheinz
Posts: 33
Joined: August 16th, 2018, 4:35 am

Re: Is our reality just a construction?

Post by gheinz »

gheinz wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 5:06 am
gheinz wrote: May 24th, 2022, 4:05 am
gheinz wrote: May 19th, 2022, 3:14 am I previously wrote an abridged version in the thread Re: Can't we ever see the real world? and reported on it in an abbreviated form in viewtopic.php?t=15839. I would like to discuss this topic in more detail here. The following considerations are based on just 2 findings/observations:

1. The starting point is the realization that we are not objective observers of reality because of our egoism (selfishness, self-care, self-centeredness). Rather, we are partisan, biased observers. There is therefore a possibility that we do not see reality as it actually is. Fortunately, while it is not possible to go directly into the state of selflessness (in which we would be objective, impartial observers), there is an easy way - through a simple logical deduction - to find out what reality would be like in that state.

2. Here the starting point is the recognition that there are subjectively significant limits as a result of our egoism (selfishness, self-care, self-centeredness). Now, using a simple inversion, we can state that in the state of SELFLESSNESS (where by definition there is no egoism) there are no subjectively meaningful boundaries; i.e. that this state can be seen as a state of limitlessness and infinity and, moreover, as a state of freedom. Because in the state of unselfishness we would see things as they actually are, it follows that there really are no meaningful boundaries. Our egoism makes us believe that there are limits and it is also the one that constructs our reality, ie. it pretends it to us.

You can judge how far I have succeeded in this derivation and I would be happy to read about it in the comments. I will continue these thoughts afterwards.
Even before you think about whether valid knowledge was gained here, you have to ask yourself why these thoughts were not thought much earlier. For example, in his Allegory of the Cave, Plato might have associated the underground prison with the state of selfishness, and might have an association of the state of freedom that a prisoner attains in the parable after being brought out of the cave to the surface with the state of selflessness.

The Advaita-Vedanta philosophy arose in India much earlier than the allegory of the cave was conceived. Its serotological goal is to experience the unity between the Atman, the core of the individual personality, the individual self, and Brahman (the cosmic self, the cause of EVERYTHING). This unity is taken as always given in this philosophy, but cannot be experienced in everyday consciousness. As previously described here, in the state of selflessness there are no limits and there is only oneness. Thus, in this state, the serotological goal of this philosophy is achieved. Here, too, one has to ask oneself why this knowledge has only now become possible. The answer can only be that a taboo, an inhibition to think, has so far prevented comprehensive reflection on selflessness. In Hindu philosophy there is the term Maya. Maya means illusion and magic. It is an integral part of Advaita-Vedanta. So Advaita-Vedanta teaches that our world is an illusion and explains the mental inhibition with magic.

Now let's take a closer look at the state of selflessness. The only thing that matters here is the Self, the Atman in Indian philosophy, the unqualified core of personality, the observer. Everything else, the koshas in Indian philosophy, the sheaths have become meaningless, no longer exist because they have limitations. But this also applies to much more: space, time, causality, conceptual thinking, material objects are no longer available.

There is no boundary between the subjective and the objective realm. That means: everything that exists is my thoughts, everything that exists is created by my thoughts. However, for the loss of all of the above, one is compensated in a great way. There are no limits to my personal power. What hurts us most in ordinary life, in the state of selfishness, is that we are constantly experiencing limitations in our personal power. That pain is no longer there, instead there is infinite well-being.

One could explain this unlimited power by the unity of the personal SELF, Atman, with the cosmic Self, Brahman (endowed with omnipotence). But since, as mentioned, there is no conceptual thinking in the state of selflessness, one also has to regard Brahman as a construction that is given only in the state of selfishness and not as something that actually exists.

I assume that this all could be subject for discussion and I would therefore like to pause again before continuing.
How can we reach the state of unselfishness, that desirable state; how should the path to this goal look like?

1. Since the goal is the state of selflessness, the path must be free from egocentric elements.

2. Since the goal is a state of complete freedom, there must be no restrictions on this path. This means that anyone who follows this path may keep the same thoughts and opinions, they can act in the same way as before, regardless of how these actions are judged by the public.

3. This argument is a bit more complicated: you need to look at what was said before. All of these thoughts were fairly simple and easy to understand. The question is, why weren't they thought of much earlier, why weren't there people who thought that a few thousand years ago? - The intellectual capacity of early humans was probably not the limiter. The reason for this restriction must have been that there was a taboo, an inhibition that only allowed the terms egoism/egocentrism and selflessness to be used inadequately in the epistemological sense. The use of these terms was previously only possible in an ethical-moral context. One bypassed the forbidden areas without realizing it, one did not realize that a taboo existed. However, this taboo was already broken at the beginning of the chain of arguments by stating that "due to our egoism/egocentricity we are not objective observers of reality". Here egoism was used in an epistemological sense. The question now arises, why after breaking this taboo is it still not possible to experience the freedom of the state of selflessness, why this knowledge cannot be assimilated? - The answer to this can only be: We humans are all connected because there are no limits in the state of selflessness, and it is therefore difficult for a single individual to break away from the general consensus. The goal will be achieved to the extent that many people have broken the taboo and recognized the knowledge hidden behind it.

All three criteria taken together mean that everyone who walks this path does so by acknowledging the knowledge imparted and by inviting others to walk this path as well. Everyone issues invitations, which the invitee can also invite in the same way. Nothing more is required.

Anyone who participates in the dissemination of knowledge trains their mind so that it works optimally, i.e. unselfishly. I will explain this in more detail and make a suggestion on how to conveniently implement this.

There is a second train of thought that leads to the same result:

As a starting point, the question will be asked what is the cause of all of humanity's problems. Human EGOISM is assumed here to be this cause. This is not about moral judgments. It doesn't matter whether someone in need consumes environmental resources to survive, for example by clearing a piece of rainforest, or someone who lives in luxury does so in order to be able to enjoy even more luxury. In both cases, environmental resources are used to the same extent. It is also irrelevant to the outcome of a war whether you are an aggressor or a defender; in both cases there is killing, injuring and destroying. Instead of egoism, one could also say that self-care or simply egocentricity is the cause of all problems.

It is clear that it is not possible to bring about behavioral change directly; There are power structures against which nothing can be done. However, it is possible to influence INDIRECTLY by countering selfish action with SELFLESS ACTION.

A second aspect in this context is that there is not much you can do as an individual. Taken together, they result in a very special kind of selfless action that makes it effective without consuming your own resources and without personal sacrifice: you invite others to join the program. No one needs to change their attitudes or behavior. The benefit is particularly favorable in relation to the effort. In many cases, no additional effort is quickly required.

In order to achieve exponential growth in this way, everyone who participates should win at least 2 direct successors. Now, assuming that it takes an average of 1 week to reach this, it takes 30 weeks to get 2^30, i.e. 1.09 billion participants. One can assume that profound positive changes are already taking place here. However, the time of 30 weeks seems to me to be too short for that. I believe that the assumption of 1 week for recruiting 2 successors is therefore not enough. However, you should still try.

For the second way, I would like to open a separate thread and announce there how you can take part, where you can register and how you can invite new members. I will then also announce this here.
In the meantime, a third train of thought has occurred to me, which results in the same practical action as with the previously mentioned train of thought.

This is about democracy, the form of organization with the greatest possible freedom for the individual. Democracies are threatened from without by their enemies and from within by decay and erosion. It needs to be maintained through activity. This activity cannot be a measure carried out from above, decreed by the representatives of this form of democracy. Democracy can only be enlivened from the bottom up, through action by citizens that stimulates a sense of community. These are all forms of the exercise of direct democracy, such as citizens' meetings to form a common conviction and interest formation, the exercise of institutional referendums as well as demonstrations and rallies to announce the interests and wishes of parts of the population.

Through the path described above, direct democracy receives strong impulses and can therefore promote free forms of community in a significant way.

Contrary to the previous announcement, only one page for all three trains of thought is currently to be offered for practical implementation: https://manifestoup.com/a .

Everyone who participates here also trains their own consciousness to function in an optimal way. See also https://manifestoup.com/save-our-world.html.

There is also the site https://manifestoup.com/i which lays out all the basic ideas and is constantly evolving.
gheinz
Posts: 33
Joined: August 16th, 2018, 4:35 am

Re: Is our reality just a construction?

Post by gheinz »

3017Metaphysician wrote: June 3rd, 2022, 8:38 am
gheinz wrote: June 3rd, 2022, 4:45 am
gheinz wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 2:13 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 8:14 am

GH!

While we can't escape our egoism in that we are all self-directed individuals seeking happiness, I don't think it makes it a bad thing. With respect to reality, in a Kantian sense, I can think of the a priori aspects of apperception and perceiving reality being analogous to the design and construction of a 'physical' camera. The camera has a fixed design that is the a priori thing-in-itself program, making the design intrinsic to how we think (cognition/consciousness). A fixed property or quality of cognition as it were. The optional lenses represent the observers individuality or subjectivity. Hence based on the design of the camera, as well as all of the individual's lenses, we have a fixed method of observation that offers some individuality (subjective-ness). One can certainly imagine a computer metaphor in a similar way...

I think ultimate reality, among many things, can become a kind of universal truth only if the subject-object merge into a third person unity (of sorts). In that sense, the designer or creator of the camera itself, can reveal itself and provide all of the details of the design & construction.

Accordingly, you would have a subject, an object, and that which breaths fire into the equation's... . So yes, we can only use the camera or one set of lenses for our apperception of anything that is seemingly real.
:shock:
I have to approach what you wrote carefully because I didn't quite understand it. So I'll try to explain my point of view in more detail:
I suspect that the great Immanuel Kant would have spoken better of a "person-in-itself" than of a priori "thing-in-itself":

In the state of selflessness we are not only impartial observers, we also have no more desires. We don't have needs anymore, there isn't even a need to sustain ourselves. There is also no need to distinguish oneself from other individuals, therefore everything that distinguishes us from other individuals is meaningless, i.e. the body and mental properties are meaningless. What remains is an abstract, featureless core of personality that could be described as a "person-in-itself". Something like this is unknown in Western philosophy; there is only the concept of the (qualified) soul.
Because one has no wants and needs in this state, everything that constitutes our reality in the state of selfishness becomes meaningless; Time, space, causality, material objects, etc. have become meaningless.
How all this arose in the state of selfishness I have no explanation for; that might never be resolved. It has to be said, however, that because we are objective observers in the state of selflessness and none of this exists there, "our" reality must be regarded as an illusion.

I also wrote about this at viewtopic.php?p=412333#p412333

As I said, I'm not sure how your point of view differs from mine. Perhaps you could use this description to explain again how your point of view may differ.
"While we can't escape our egoism in that we are all self-directed individuals seeking happiness, I don't think it makes it a bad thing."
I have to disagree. If we consider that in the state of unselfishness there are no problems, we must blame all problems on selfishness.

I know the comparison of a camera with an eye. I can not say more about that.

As for ultimate reality, I can only repeat what I said earlier: everything we experience in "our" world is an illusion. But that's something that doesn't affect me personally. I just ignore that and hope for the "way out" that I've already started to describe.
GH!

In your theory or world view, I think you are stuck on this idea of selfishness being some sort of deleterious thing. One has to remember the duality of existence, in this instance, being that as you say "we must blame all problems on selfishness" excludes the opposite/virtues of selfishness. We are all self-directed individuals, who desire happiness not only for ourselves, but for others that we either love or feel the need for spiritual connection or otherwise. We are social creatures. We are all interconnected in purpose. We need other's to achieve goals and fulfill purpose. It is only through others that we can do that, not to mention propagate the species.

So, to give you some tough love here, existential angst and dread may indeed result from the frustrations of our illusionary reality or existence, but that is only part of the equation. Volitional existence provides for the Will to choose and act in ways that lift the human spirit and encourage propagation of the species... .

Anyway, to get back to your theory regarding transcendence from the self, how do you reconcile the reality of subjectivity? In other words, what is the purpose of your theory if it precludes individuality (one's own conscious existence/self-awareness)? Are you suggesting nirvana is tantamount to a pure state of contemplation (Aristotle)? Or, cosmologically, are you thinking there is some sort of return to, or relegation of, ontological existence somehow being transformed into a state of inert matter (I don't think you are...)? What would be the purpose of your theory? Why can't you have a unified theory in both subjectivity and objectivity?

Finally, with respect to the camera analogy, or metaphysics 101 as it were, incorporates the concepts of temporal-ness and finitude with the rose colored glasses metaphor. In other words, it's akin to Plato's cave allegory. My camera example was to not only capture that metaphor, but to also illustrate the watch analogy (Paley's Watch design) meme, and subjectivity and purpose. Meaning, quite simply, if we could either design and manufacture a human and/or a universe ex nihilo, then the need to wonder how something emerged from nothing would not exist. We would have your unified theory concerning the nature of existence and the conscious Beings within it. Again, we would then know, subjectively, objectively and abstractly, what breaths fire into the cosmological equations. Right?

Maybe the easier way to think about this problem is in the form of a question: how do we preclude consciousness from a theory of everything?
In your theory or world view, I think you are stuck on this idea of selfishness being some sort of deleterious thing.
I wrote @ viewtopic.php?p=411924#p411924, May 18th
I must be grateful to you for raising the question of the path to the goal of attaining the state of selflessness. I suspect that many who read the description of the goal thought to themselves, a nice theory but not for me because selflessness can only be achieved through personal sacrifice, which I don't want and therefore ignored the subject without discussing it further. It is evidently common that when one thinks of selflessness, one's first thought is of personal sacrifice. .....

My idea for the path is different. It involves no conflict with the legitimate concern for self-care.
It is my firm belief that every individual has the right to do whatever they believe is necessary to achieve happiness, so long as it does not conflict with the legitimate interests of other individuals.
In another context viewtopic.php?p=412791&sid=02057793516d ... 45#p412791 I wrote
the question will be asked what is the cause of all of humanity's problems. Human EGOISM is assumed here to be this cause. This is not about moral judgments. It doesn't matter whether someone in need consumes environmental resources to survive, for example by clearing a piece of rainforest, or someone who lives in luxury does so in order to be able to enjoy even more luxury. In both cases, environmental resources are used to the same extent. It is also irrelevant to the outcome of a war whether you are an aggressor or a defender; in both cases there is killing, injuring and destroying. Instead of egoism, one could also say that self-care or simply egocentricity is the cause of all problems.
I justify this with the fact that the world population was still as large as it is now and due to technical progress the possibilities for destruction, pollution and exploitation of the environment have never been so great.

The world is now in an extremely critical state. I do not want to mention all the well-known factors responsible for this, but I would like to point out that the war in Ukraine is causing and has already created major problems for feeding the world's population. I am of the opinion that this war is also caused by collective egoism. How can we get out of this predicaments?
It is clear that it is not possible to bring about behavioral change directly; There are power structures against which nothing can be done. However, it is possible to influence INDIRECTLY by countering selfish action with SELFLESS ACTION.
Anyway, to get back to your theory regarding transcendence from the self, how do you reconcile the reality of subjectivity? In other words, what is the purpose of your theory if it precludes individuality (one's own conscious existence/self-awareness)? Are you suggesting nirvana is tantamount to a pure state of contemplation (Aristotle)?...
The state of selflessness is characterized above all by the fact that there are no longer any desires. It is therefore a state of freedom from dependence on external conditions. One is self-sufficient. One experience no limits to personal power. One experiences oneself as infinitely powerful. This is the advantage over a state of being selfish and there constantly pushing the limits of your personal power.

There is no longer a desire to be different from other individuals. Therefore, everything about that person becomes meaningless except for an abstract, unattributed core of personality. Everything becomes meaningless, the body and all mental qualities. This is not a Nirvana of Buddhism in which the individual has completely disappeared, the individual remains as an observer. It observes that it has unlimited power, but doesn't feel the need to use it.

It should be remembered that this description is an abstraction. It's more about embarking on the path of being able to enjoy the benefits only to the extent that you've progressed along the path.

In order to achieve the goal of selflessness, I have suggested a particularly effective way:
A second aspect in this context is that there is not much you can do as an individual. Taken together, they result in a very special kind of selfless action that makes it effective without consuming your own resources and without personal sacrifice: you invite others to join the program. No one needs to change their attitudes or behavior. The benefit is particularly favorable in relation to the effort. In many cases, no additional effort is quickly required.
I don't know if I've cleared all your doubts now. I would be grateful if you could show me the gaps or confirm that all doubts have been removed so that it is possible to "take part".
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Is our reality just a construction?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

gheinz wrote: June 15th, 2022, 5:07 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 3rd, 2022, 8:38 am
gheinz wrote: June 3rd, 2022, 4:45 am
gheinz wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 2:13 pm
I have to approach what you wrote carefully because I didn't quite understand it. So I'll try to explain my point of view in more detail:
I suspect that the great Immanuel Kant would have spoken better of a "person-in-itself" than of a priori "thing-in-itself":

In the state of selflessness we are not only impartial observers, we also have no more desires. We don't have needs anymore, there isn't even a need to sustain ourselves. There is also no need to distinguish oneself from other individuals, therefore everything that distinguishes us from other individuals is meaningless, i.e. the body and mental properties are meaningless. What remains is an abstract, featureless core of personality that could be described as a "person-in-itself". Something like this is unknown in Western philosophy; there is only the concept of the (qualified) soul.
Because one has no wants and needs in this state, everything that constitutes our reality in the state of selfishness becomes meaningless; Time, space, causality, material objects, etc. have become meaningless.
How all this arose in the state of selfishness I have no explanation for; that might never be resolved. It has to be said, however, that because we are objective observers in the state of selflessness and none of this exists there, "our" reality must be regarded as an illusion.

I also wrote about this at viewtopic.php?p=412333#p412333

As I said, I'm not sure how your point of view differs from mine. Perhaps you could use this description to explain again how your point of view may differ.
"While we can't escape our egoism in that we are all self-directed individuals seeking happiness, I don't think it makes it a bad thing."
I have to disagree. If we consider that in the state of unselfishness there are no problems, we must blame all problems on selfishness.

I know the comparison of a camera with an eye. I can not say more about that.

As for ultimate reality, I can only repeat what I said earlier: everything we experience in "our" world is an illusion. But that's something that doesn't affect me personally. I just ignore that and hope for the "way out" that I've already started to describe.
GH!

In your theory or world view, I think you are stuck on this idea of selfishness being some sort of deleterious thing. One has to remember the duality of existence, in this instance, being that as you say "we must blame all problems on selfishness" excludes the opposite/virtues of selfishness. We are all self-directed individuals, who desire happiness not only for ourselves, but for others that we either love or feel the need for spiritual connection or otherwise. We are social creatures. We are all interconnected in purpose. We need other's to achieve goals and fulfill purpose. It is only through others that we can do that, not to mention propagate the species.

So, to give you some tough love here, existential angst and dread may indeed result from the frustrations of our illusionary reality or existence, but that is only part of the equation. Volitional existence provides for the Will to choose and act in ways that lift the human spirit and encourage propagation of the species... .

Anyway, to get back to your theory regarding transcendence from the self, how do you reconcile the reality of subjectivity? In other words, what is the purpose of your theory if it precludes individuality (one's own conscious existence/self-awareness)? Are you suggesting nirvana is tantamount to a pure state of contemplation (Aristotle)? Or, cosmologically, are you thinking there is some sort of return to, or relegation of, ontological existence somehow being transformed into a state of inert matter (I don't think you are...)? What would be the purpose of your theory? Why can't you have a unified theory in both subjectivity and objectivity?

Finally, with respect to the camera analogy, or metaphysics 101 as it were, incorporates the concepts of temporal-ness and finitude with the rose colored glasses metaphor. In other words, it's akin to Plato's cave allegory. My camera example was to not only capture that metaphor, but to also illustrate the watch analogy (Paley's Watch design) meme, and subjectivity and purpose. Meaning, quite simply, if we could either design and manufacture a human and/or a universe ex nihilo, then the need to wonder how something emerged from nothing would not exist. We would have your unified theory concerning the nature of existence and the conscious Beings within it. Again, we would then know, subjectively, objectively and abstractly, what breaths fire into the cosmological equations. Right?

Maybe the easier way to think about this problem is in the form of a question: how do we preclude consciousness from a theory of everything?
In your theory or world view, I think you are stuck on this idea of selfishness being some sort of deleterious thing.
I wrote @ viewtopic.php?p=411924#p411924, May 18th
I must be grateful to you for raising the question of the path to the goal of attaining the state of selflessness. I suspect that many who read the description of the goal thought to themselves, a nice theory but not for me because selflessness can only be achieved through personal sacrifice, which I don't want and therefore ignored the subject without discussing it further. It is evidently common that when one thinks of selflessness, one's first thought is of personal sacrifice. .....

My idea for the path is different. It involves no conflict with the legitimate concern for self-care.
It is my firm belief that every individual has the right to do whatever they believe is necessary to achieve happiness, so long as it does not conflict with the legitimate interests of other individuals.
In another context viewtopic.php?p=412791&sid=02057793516d ... 45#p412791 I wrote
the question will be asked what is the cause of all of humanity's problems. Human EGOISM is assumed here to be this cause. This is not about moral judgments. It doesn't matter whether someone in need consumes environmental resources to survive, for example by clearing a piece of rainforest, or someone who lives in luxury does so in order to be able to enjoy even more luxury. In both cases, environmental resources are used to the same extent. It is also irrelevant to the outcome of a war whether you are an aggressor or a defender; in both cases there is killing, injuring and destroying. Instead of egoism, one could also say that self-care or simply egocentricity is the cause of all problems.
I justify this with the fact that the world population was still as large as it is now and due to technical progress the possibilities for destruction, pollution and exploitation of the environment have never been so great.

The world is now in an extremely critical state. I do not want to mention all the well-known factors responsible for this, but I would like to point out that the war in Ukraine is causing and has already created major problems for feeding the world's population. I am of the opinion that this war is also caused by collective egoism. How can we get out of this predicaments?
It is clear that it is not possible to bring about behavioral change directly; There are power structures against which nothing can be done. However, it is possible to influence INDIRECTLY by countering selfish action with SELFLESS ACTION.
Anyway, to get back to your theory regarding transcendence from the self, how do you reconcile the reality of subjectivity? In other words, what is the purpose of your theory if it precludes individuality (one's own conscious existence/self-awareness)? Are you suggesting nirvana is tantamount to a pure state of contemplation (Aristotle)?...
The state of selflessness is characterized above all by the fact that there are no longer any desires. It is therefore a state of freedom from dependence on external conditions. One is self-sufficient. One experience no limits to personal power. One experiences oneself as infinitely powerful. This is the advantage over a state of being selfish and there constantly pushing the limits of your personal power.

There is no longer a desire to be different from other individuals. Therefore, everything about that person becomes meaningless except for an abstract, unattributed core of personality. Everything becomes meaningless, the body and all mental qualities. This is not a Nirvana of Buddhism in which the individual has completely disappeared, the individual remains as an observer. It observes that it has unlimited power, but doesn't feel the need to use it.

It should be remembered that this description is an abstraction. It's more about embarking on the path of being able to enjoy the benefits only to the extent that you've progressed along the path.

In order to achieve the goal of selflessness, I have suggested a particularly effective way:
A second aspect in this context is that there is not much you can do as an individual. Taken together, they result in a very special kind of selfless action that makes it effective without consuming your own resources and without personal sacrifice: you invite others to join the program. No one needs to change their attitudes or behavior. The benefit is particularly favorable in relation to the effort. In many cases, no additional effort is quickly required.
I don't know if I've cleared all your doubts now. I would be grateful if you could show me the gaps or confirm that all doubts have been removed so that it is possible to "take part".
GH!

Thank you for those clarifications. One reason why I participated in this discussion was that I found it appealing to postulate the blurring of the subject-object divide. To have a 'true' merging or integration (of opposites) of subjective desires (intentionality) into an objective realm of Being, seems reminiscent of the ability to construct or observe a block universe. That it to say that we could stand back, third person, and somehow become aware of all things happening at once (a sense of timelessness/eternity).

In doing so (in that cosmological way), we can conceive of an awareness:

Our birth is out there in space-time. Your death, too, is in space-time. Every moment of your life is out there, somewhere, in space-time. So says the block universe model of our world. According to the block universe theory, the universe is a giant block of all the things that ever happen at any time and at any place. On this view, the past, present and future all exist — and are equally real.


So in a Humanistic way, if we (can) transcend the subjective, how can retain our Being? Pragmatically, one could start with the philosophical notion of Stoicism and work from there...one of many tenets which align with your notion of letting go of certain things, much like Taoism. And leads to other notions of destiny as well. Are we destined to experience a unity between the subject-object dichotomy, I wonder? You yourself, already have suggested a human need for doing so (consider the synthetic a priori in logic that causes one to wonder about things). This may be universal to some if not many, who are also seeking ways to capture a non-duality of Being, or Nondualism proper. To this end, this interconnectedness, pure awareness, pure consciousness, is very appealing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

Kind of like the ideas associated with Einstein's block universe theory, philosophically, could Nondualism become part of that forgoing transcendence of Time (reminiscent of Kant's noumenal world) in an ontological way?

Just some more thoughts...
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
gheinz
Posts: 33
Joined: August 16th, 2018, 4:35 am

Re: Is our reality just a construction?

Post by gheinz »

3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 10:12 am
gheinz wrote: June 15th, 2022, 5:07 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 3rd, 2022, 8:38 am
gheinz wrote: June 3rd, 2022, 4:45 am

I have to disagree. If we consider that in the state of unselfishness there are no problems, we must blame all problems on selfishness.

I know the comparison of a camera with an eye. I can not say more about that.

As for ultimate reality, I can only repeat what I said earlier: everything we experience in "our" world is an illusion. But that's something that doesn't affect me personally. I just ignore that and hope for the "way out" that I've already started to describe.
GH!

In your theory or world view, I think you are stuck on this idea of selfishness being some sort of deleterious thing. One has to remember the duality of existence, in this instance, being that as you say "we must blame all problems on selfishness" excludes the opposite/virtues of selfishness. We are all self-directed individuals, who desire happiness not only for ourselves, but for others that we either love or feel the need for spiritual connection or otherwise. We are social creatures. We are all interconnected in purpose. We need other's to achieve goals and fulfill purpose. It is only through others that we can do that, not to mention propagate the species.

So, to give you some tough love here, existential angst and dread may indeed result from the frustrations of our illusionary reality or existence, but that is only part of the equation. Volitional existence provides for the Will to choose and act in ways that lift the human spirit and encourage propagation of the species... .

Anyway, to get back to your theory regarding transcendence from the self, how do you reconcile the reality of subjectivity? In other words, what is the purpose of your theory if it precludes individuality (one's own conscious existence/self-awareness)? Are you suggesting nirvana is tantamount to a pure state of contemplation (Aristotle)? Or, cosmologically, are you thinking there is some sort of return to, or relegation of, ontological existence somehow being transformed into a state of inert matter (I don't think you are...)? What would be the purpose of your theory? Why can't you have a unified theory in both subjectivity and objectivity?

Finally, with respect to the camera analogy, or metaphysics 101 as it were, incorporates the concepts of temporal-ness and finitude with the rose colored glasses metaphor. In other words, it's akin to Plato's cave allegory. My camera example was to not only capture that metaphor, but to also illustrate the watch analogy (Paley's Watch design) meme, and subjectivity and purpose. Meaning, quite simply, if we could either design and manufacture a human and/or a universe ex nihilo, then the need to wonder how something emerged from nothing would not exist. We would have your unified theory concerning the nature of existence and the conscious Beings within it. Again, we would then know, subjectively, objectively and abstractly, what breaths fire into the cosmological equations. Right?

Maybe the easier way to think about this problem is in the form of a question: how do we preclude consciousness from a theory of everything?
In your theory or world view, I think you are stuck on this idea of selfishness being some sort of deleterious thing.
I wrote @ viewtopic.php?p=411924#p411924, May 18th
I must be grateful to you for raising the question of the path to the goal of attaining the state of selflessness. I suspect that many who read the description of the goal thought to themselves, a nice theory but not for me because selflessness can only be achieved through personal sacrifice, which I don't want and therefore ignored the subject without discussing it further. It is evidently common that when one thinks of selflessness, one's first thought is of personal sacrifice. .....

My idea for the path is different. It involves no conflict with the legitimate concern for self-care.
It is my firm belief that every individual has the right to do whatever they believe is necessary to achieve happiness, so long as it does not conflict with the legitimate interests of other individuals.
In another context viewtopic.php?p=412791&sid=02057793516d ... 45#p412791 I wrote
the question will be asked what is the cause of all of humanity's problems. Human EGOISM is assumed here to be this cause. This is not about moral judgments. It doesn't matter whether someone in need consumes environmental resources to survive, for example by clearing a piece of rainforest, or someone who lives in luxury does so in order to be able to enjoy even more luxury. In both cases, environmental resources are used to the same extent. It is also irrelevant to the outcome of a war whether you are an aggressor or a defender; in both cases there is killing, injuring and destroying. Instead of egoism, one could also say that self-care or simply egocentricity is the cause of all problems.
I justify this with the fact that the world population was still as large as it is now and due to technical progress the possibilities for destruction, pollution and exploitation of the environment have never been so great.

The world is now in an extremely critical state. I do not want to mention all the well-known factors responsible for this, but I would like to point out that the war in Ukraine is causing and has already created major problems for feeding the world's population. I am of the opinion that this war is also caused by collective egoism. How can we get out of this predicaments?
It is clear that it is not possible to bring about behavioral change directly; There are power structures against which nothing can be done. However, it is possible to influence INDIRECTLY by countering selfish action with SELFLESS ACTION.
Anyway, to get back to your theory regarding transcendence from the self, how do you reconcile the reality of subjectivity? In other words, what is the purpose of your theory if it precludes individuality (one's own conscious existence/self-awareness)? Are you suggesting nirvana is tantamount to a pure state of contemplation (Aristotle)?...
The state of selflessness is characterized above all by the fact that there are no longer any desires. It is therefore a state of freedom from dependence on external conditions. One is self-sufficient. One experience no limits to personal power. One experiences oneself as infinitely powerful. This is the advantage over a state of being selfish and there constantly pushing the limits of your personal power.

There is no longer a desire to be different from other individuals. Therefore, everything about that person becomes meaningless except for an abstract, unattributed core of personality. Everything becomes meaningless, the body and all mental qualities. This is not a Nirvana of Buddhism in which the individual has completely disappeared, the individual remains as an observer. It observes that it has unlimited power, but doesn't feel the need to use it.

It should be remembered that this description is an abstraction. It's more about embarking on the path of being able to enjoy the benefits only to the extent that you've progressed along the path.

In order to achieve the goal of selflessness, I have suggested a particularly effective way:
A second aspect in this context is that there is not much you can do as an individual. Taken together, they result in a very special kind of selfless action that makes it effective without consuming your own resources and without personal sacrifice: you invite others to join the program. No one needs to change their attitudes or behavior. The benefit is particularly favorable in relation to the effort. In many cases, no additional effort is quickly required.
I don't know if I've cleared all your doubts now. I would be grateful if you could show me the gaps or confirm that all doubts have been removed so that it is possible to "take part".
GH!

Thank you for those clarifications. One reason why I participated in this discussion was that I found it appealing to postulate the blurring of the subject-object divide. To have a 'true' merging or integration (of opposites) of subjective desires (intentionality) into an objective realm of Being, seems reminiscent of the ability to construct or observe a block universe. That it to say that we could stand back, third person, and somehow become aware of all things happening at once (a sense of timelessness/eternity).

In doing so (in that cosmological way), we can conceive of an awareness:

Our birth is out there in space-time. Your death, too, is in space-time. Every moment of your life is out there, somewhere, in space-time. So says the block universe model of our world. According to the block universe theory, the universe is a giant block of all the things that ever happen at any time and at any place. On this view, the past, present and future all exist — and are equally real.


So in a Humanistic way, if we (can) transcend the subjective, how can retain our Being? Pragmatically, one could start with the philosophical notion of Stoicism and work from there...one of many tenets which align with your notion of letting go of certain things, much like Taoism. And leads to other notions of destiny as well. Are we destined to experience a unity between the subject-object dichotomy, I wonder? You yourself, already have suggested a human need for doing so (consider the synthetic a priori in logic that causes one to wonder about things). This may be universal to some if not many, who are also seeking ways to capture a non-duality of Being, or Nondualism proper. To this end, this interconnectedness, pure awareness, pure consciousness, is very appealing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

Kind of like the ideas associated with Einstein's block universe theory, philosophically, could Nondualism become part of that forgoing transcendence of Time (reminiscent of Kant's noumenal world) in an ontological way?

Just some more thoughts...
It's not entirely clear to me whether you're raising open questions that I can still answer, or whether they're questions that will forever be a mystery. Regarding the block universe, I would like to remind you that in the state of selflessness, space and time no longer have any meaning. This also has to do with the fact that in this state there are no longer any wishes or longings. There is also no subject-object dichotomy here - everything that exists is my thoughts, everything that exists is created by my thoughts. In addition to what was said earlier that in the state of selflessness the body and mental qualities become meaningless, this specifically means that as selflessness is attained, disease, old age and death are experienced as meaningless.

Maybe what I will describe later will also help. I intend the system of thought that has hitherto been presented exclusively as non-dualistic—it can be viewed as an extension of the traditional (non-dualistic) Advaita-Vedanta philosophy to include a more specific description of its serotological goal — extend with a dualistic view. Your link for nondualism also describes the (dualistic) Samkhya philosophy. Within Hiduism, it is considered as the great antagonist to the Advaita-Vedanta philosophy and has a close relationship to yoga philosophy and practice. I intend to discuss a possible dualistic view by comparing it to this philosophy.

It would be a great advantage if both the non-dualistic and the dualistic view were possible within the system. It could be seen as a philosophical flip-flop. The thought system would gain considerably in persuasiveness.

Unfortunately, it always takes me a lot of time (due to personal limitations) until I am able to write a post again. I must therefore ask you for a little patience.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is our reality just a construction?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

gheinz wrote: June 22nd, 2022, 12:42 pm It would be a great advantage if both the non-dualistic and the dualistic view were possible within the system.
Where's your problem? Take whatever view best suits your current thinking, and don't even bother to label it. There's no point getting wound up by labels. If a dualistic view should happen to suit what you're thinking about, use it. Likewise, a more holistic view. Surely these are just perspectives, one of our most valuable thinking tools, IMO. Adopt whichever one(s) suit your purpose(s) and convenience. Why not?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Is our reality just a construction?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

gheinz wrote: June 22nd, 2022, 12:42 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 15th, 2022, 10:12 am
gheinz wrote: June 15th, 2022, 5:07 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: June 3rd, 2022, 8:38 am

GH!

In your theory or world view, I think you are stuck on this idea of selfishness being some sort of deleterious thing. One has to remember the duality of existence, in this instance, being that as you say "we must blame all problems on selfishness" excludes the opposite/virtues of selfishness. We are all self-directed individuals, who desire happiness not only for ourselves, but for others that we either love or feel the need for spiritual connection or otherwise. We are social creatures. We are all interconnected in purpose. We need other's to achieve goals and fulfill purpose. It is only through others that we can do that, not to mention propagate the species.

So, to give you some tough love here, existential angst and dread may indeed result from the frustrations of our illusionary reality or existence, but that is only part of the equation. Volitional existence provides for the Will to choose and act in ways that lift the human spirit and encourage propagation of the species... .

Anyway, to get back to your theory regarding transcendence from the self, how do you reconcile the reality of subjectivity? In other words, what is the purpose of your theory if it precludes individuality (one's own conscious existence/self-awareness)? Are you suggesting nirvana is tantamount to a pure state of contemplation (Aristotle)? Or, cosmologically, are you thinking there is some sort of return to, or relegation of, ontological existence somehow being transformed into a state of inert matter (I don't think you are...)? What would be the purpose of your theory? Why can't you have a unified theory in both subjectivity and objectivity?

Finally, with respect to the camera analogy, or metaphysics 101 as it were, incorporates the concepts of temporal-ness and finitude with the rose colored glasses metaphor. In other words, it's akin to Plato's cave allegory. My camera example was to not only capture that metaphor, but to also illustrate the watch analogy (Paley's Watch design) meme, and subjectivity and purpose. Meaning, quite simply, if we could either design and manufacture a human and/or a universe ex nihilo, then the need to wonder how something emerged from nothing would not exist. We would have your unified theory concerning the nature of existence and the conscious Beings within it. Again, we would then know, subjectively, objectively and abstractly, what breaths fire into the cosmological equations. Right?

Maybe the easier way to think about this problem is in the form of a question: how do we preclude consciousness from a theory of everything?
In your theory or world view, I think you are stuck on this idea of selfishness being some sort of deleterious thing.
I wrote @ viewtopic.php?p=411924#p411924, May 18th
I must be grateful to you for raising the question of the path to the goal of attaining the state of selflessness. I suspect that many who read the description of the goal thought to themselves, a nice theory but not for me because selflessness can only be achieved through personal sacrifice, which I don't want and therefore ignored the subject without discussing it further. It is evidently common that when one thinks of selflessness, one's first thought is of personal sacrifice. .....

My idea for the path is different. It involves no conflict with the legitimate concern for self-care.
It is my firm belief that every individual has the right to do whatever they believe is necessary to achieve happiness, so long as it does not conflict with the legitimate interests of other individuals.
In another context viewtopic.php?p=412791&sid=02057793516d ... 45#p412791 I wrote
the question will be asked what is the cause of all of humanity's problems. Human EGOISM is assumed here to be this cause. This is not about moral judgments. It doesn't matter whether someone in need consumes environmental resources to survive, for example by clearing a piece of rainforest, or someone who lives in luxury does so in order to be able to enjoy even more luxury. In both cases, environmental resources are used to the same extent. It is also irrelevant to the outcome of a war whether you are an aggressor or a defender; in both cases there is killing, injuring and destroying. Instead of egoism, one could also say that self-care or simply egocentricity is the cause of all problems.
I justify this with the fact that the world population was still as large as it is now and due to technical progress the possibilities for destruction, pollution and exploitation of the environment have never been so great.

The world is now in an extremely critical state. I do not want to mention all the well-known factors responsible for this, but I would like to point out that the war in Ukraine is causing and has already created major problems for feeding the world's population. I am of the opinion that this war is also caused by collective egoism. How can we get out of this predicaments?
It is clear that it is not possible to bring about behavioral change directly; There are power structures against which nothing can be done. However, it is possible to influence INDIRECTLY by countering selfish action with SELFLESS ACTION.
Anyway, to get back to your theory regarding transcendence from the self, how do you reconcile the reality of subjectivity? In other words, what is the purpose of your theory if it precludes individuality (one's own conscious existence/self-awareness)? Are you suggesting nirvana is tantamount to a pure state of contemplation (Aristotle)?...
The state of selflessness is characterized above all by the fact that there are no longer any desires. It is therefore a state of freedom from dependence on external conditions. One is self-sufficient. One experience no limits to personal power. One experiences oneself as infinitely powerful. This is the advantage over a state of being selfish and there constantly pushing the limits of your personal power.

There is no longer a desire to be different from other individuals. Therefore, everything about that person becomes meaningless except for an abstract, unattributed core of personality. Everything becomes meaningless, the body and all mental qualities. This is not a Nirvana of Buddhism in which the individual has completely disappeared, the individual remains as an observer. It observes that it has unlimited power, but doesn't feel the need to use it.

It should be remembered that this description is an abstraction. It's more about embarking on the path of being able to enjoy the benefits only to the extent that you've progressed along the path.

In order to achieve the goal of selflessness, I have suggested a particularly effective way:
A second aspect in this context is that there is not much you can do as an individual. Taken together, they result in a very special kind of selfless action that makes it effective without consuming your own resources and without personal sacrifice: you invite others to join the program. No one needs to change their attitudes or behavior. The benefit is particularly favorable in relation to the effort. In many cases, no additional effort is quickly required.
I don't know if I've cleared all your doubts now. I would be grateful if you could show me the gaps or confirm that all doubts have been removed so that it is possible to "take part".
GH!

Thank you for those clarifications. One reason why I participated in this discussion was that I found it appealing to postulate the blurring of the subject-object divide. To have a 'true' merging or integration (of opposites) of subjective desires (intentionality) into an objective realm of Being, seems reminiscent of the ability to construct or observe a block universe. That it to say that we could stand back, third person, and somehow become aware of all things happening at once (a sense of timelessness/eternity).

In doing so (in that cosmological way), we can conceive of an awareness:

Our birth is out there in space-time. Your death, too, is in space-time. Every moment of your life is out there, somewhere, in space-time. So says the block universe model of our world. According to the block universe theory, the universe is a giant block of all the things that ever happen at any time and at any place. On this view, the past, present and future all exist — and are equally real.


So in a Humanistic way, if we (can) transcend the subjective, how can retain our Being? Pragmatically, one could start with the philosophical notion of Stoicism and work from there...one of many tenets which align with your notion of letting go of certain things, much like Taoism. And leads to other notions of destiny as well. Are we destined to experience a unity between the subject-object dichotomy, I wonder? You yourself, already have suggested a human need for doing so (consider the synthetic a priori in logic that causes one to wonder about things). This may be universal to some if not many, who are also seeking ways to capture a non-duality of Being, or Nondualism proper. To this end, this interconnectedness, pure awareness, pure consciousness, is very appealing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

Kind of like the ideas associated with Einstein's block universe theory, philosophically, could Nondualism become part of that forgoing transcendence of Time (reminiscent of Kant's noumenal world) in an ontological way?

Just some more thoughts...
It's not entirely clear to me whether you're raising open questions that I can still answer, or whether they're questions that will forever be a mystery. Regarding the block universe, I would like to remind you that in the state of selflessness, space and time no longer have any meaning. This also has to do with the fact that in this state there are no longer any wishes or longings. There is also no subject-object dichotomy here - everything that exists is my thoughts, everything that exists is created by my thoughts. In addition to what was said earlier that in the state of selflessness the body and mental qualities become meaningless, this specifically means that as selflessness is attained, disease, old age and death are experienced as meaningless.

Maybe what I will describe later will also help. I intend the system of thought that has hitherto been presented exclusively as non-dualistic—it can be viewed as an extension of the traditional (non-dualistic) Advaita-Vedanta philosophy to include a more specific description of its serotological goal — extend with a dualistic view. Your link for nondualism also describes the (dualistic) Samkhya philosophy. Within Hiduism, it is considered as the great antagonist to the Advaita-Vedanta philosophy and has a close relationship to yoga philosophy and practice. I intend to discuss a possible dualistic view by comparing it to this philosophy.

It would be a great advantage if both the non-dualistic and the dualistic view were possible within the system. It could be seen as a philosophical flip-flop. The thought system would gain considerably in persuasiveness.

Unfortunately, it always takes me a lot of time (due to personal limitations) until I am able to write a post again. I must therefore ask you for a little patience.
GH!

I certaily like your model, but have you considered the inconsistency here, you said: There is also no subject-object dichotomy here - everything that exists is my thoughts, everything that exists is created by my thoughts.

If we are to transcend the self, then 'everything that exists is my thoughts' is counterintuitive to the proposed model (of Being). Right? And that's because "my thoughts" remain paramount to the/your model.

Also, no quarrel whatsoever with the nondualist archetype of the Advaita. Similarly, in Christianity, within the analogical premise of eternal consciousness, the nature mathematics itself provides for a model of unchanging truth or descriptions of reality (and to a lesser degree 'explanation' of reality) that is purely objective, metaphysical, and eternal. Some would also argue that it has an independence external to the self... (via it describing the initial conditions of Singularity).

And so, if you could translate some that into a model of both physical and metaphysical properties of conscious existence (both quality and quantity), and being transcendent in a way that makes Being eternal (like the model in /Christianity), it would somehow preserve temporal self-awareness with an eternal truth of some kind.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
Samana Johann
Posts: 313
Joined: June 28th, 2022, 7:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Is our reality just a construction?

Post by Samana Johann »

gheinz wrote: May 19th, 2022, 3:14 am I previously wrote an abridged version in the thread Re: Can't we ever see the real world? and reported on it in an abbreviated form in viewtopic.php?t=15839. I would like to discuss this topic in more detail here. The following considerations are based on just 2 findings/observations:

1. The starting point is the realization that we are not objective observers of reality because of our egoism (selfishness, self-care, self-centeredness). Rather, we are partisan, biased observers. There is therefore a possibility that we do not see reality as it actually is. Fortunately, while it is not possible to go directly into the state of selflessness (in which we would be objective, impartial observers), there is an easy way - through a simple logical deduction - to find out what reality would be like in that state.

2. Here the starting point is the recognition that there are subjectively significant limits as a result of our egoism (selfishness, self-care, self-centeredness). Now, using a simple inversion, we can state that in the state of SELFLESSNESS (where by definition there is no egoism) there are no subjectively meaningful boundaries; i.e. that this state can be seen as a state of limitlessness and infinity and, moreover, as a state of freedom. Because in the state of unselfishness we would see things as they actually are, it follows that there really are no meaningful boundaries. Our egoism makes us believe that there are limits and it is also the one that constructs our reality, ie. it pretends it to us.

You can judge how far I have succeeded in this derivation and I would be happy to read about it in the comments. I will continue these thoughts afterwards.
Good Heinz,

why does one like to apply one's reality (one's experiences) on others, likes to construct it to 'our' at first place? Even, if not seen it clear, the statement 'realities are just construction' would be not valid but based on a construct.
gheinz
Posts: 33
Joined: August 16th, 2018, 4:35 am

Re: Is our reality just a construction?

Post by gheinz »

Angelo Cannata wrote: May 19th, 2022, 5:16 am You don't need egoism to be prevented from any contact with reality. You just can't, because selflessness is impossible: it is impossible simply because it is impossible to think without using our brain. As a consequence, whatever we think is unreliable, because we don't have any way to get control of our brain without using it again to do the control.
What I have said is a direct consequence of assuming that there is some reality out there: if it exists, we cannot ignore the reality of our being inescapably imprisoned into our brain, so that the very ideas of "reality", "being", "out there" turn out to be creations of our brain: we must admit that we have no idea of what they mean.
This is the paradox: if we assume that reality exists, this very assumption forces us automatically to admit that we don't know what we are talking about.
The key to understanding is probably: The state of unselfishness is a state of desirelessness. This means that one is self-sufficient, that everything but oneself is meaningless. Everything means: space, time, especially matter are meaningless, yes, they no longer exist. It also means that one's own body has become meaningless, it no longer exists. This in turn means that the brain no longer exists either. You are right, thinking is no longer possible. However: If nothing exists anymore I don't have to worry anymore; It doesn't mean anything to me that I can't think anymore.

But it remains that I can observe. What I can observe in myself: There are no limits for me. My ability to achieve is unlimited. But if I have unlimited ability, what else should I wish for? - I will not make use of my (unlimited) ability. What remains: The good feeling of being infinitely powerful.

That’s all I want to say. However I believe it is necessary to anticipate a possible objection: I suspect that the objection may come that one cannot get rid of one's body because it could manifest itself through pain. However, it seems to me that there is no fixed connection between the body and consciousness. I think I read that someone who had been through a horrible accident felt no pain, at least for a very short time, even though he had lost a significant part of his body because the shock of what he had experienced overwhelmed the pain.

Here one can refute the objection on the grounds that experiencing unlimited power results in the inability to perceive bodily sensations.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is our reality just a construction?

Post by Sculptor1 »

THe "world" we conceive is a partial construction, limited by senses, which give certain qualities to energetic phenomena.
The means by which we perceive are not absolute. Light energy need not be "seen" as we see; nor vibrations "heard" as we hear.
Low blood sugar is not perceived quantitatively but as a vague feeling we call "hunger. There is no a priori reason why a burnt finger should feel as it does.
So our senses gather information and build a picture in colours that evolution has invented, with sound and pressure and warmth. This is a construction as natural to us as any other animal's perceptions are natural to them. But they have different worlds; bats "see" sound.

But this does not mean it is "JUST" a construction, because it is a representation of the real.
gheinz
Posts: 33
Joined: August 16th, 2018, 4:35 am

Re: Is our reality just a construction?

Post by gheinz »

I wasn't really happy about the "just" the whole time....

There is an "idealistic" point of view about reality:
Our reality doesn't really exist; it is an illusion.
There is a "realistic" point of view: apart from special "hallucinations", we see reality as it really is.

In order to be able to cope with our everyday life in a reasonable way, we have to take the realistic point of view.
In order to put ourselves in a better position than the present one, we must look at the world from the idealistic point of view.

I have described my way to achive a better position here:
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 91#p412791
AND: https://manifestoup.com/a/?InviterID=324-1836311541
is the practical execution of this way
(I know I'm a tireless preacher) :wink:
gheinz
Posts: 33
Joined: August 16th, 2018, 4:35 am

Re: Is our reality just a construction?

Post by gheinz »

gheinz wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:02 pm
gheinz wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 5:06 am
gheinz wrote: May 24th, 2022, 4:05 am
gheinz wrote: May 19th, 2022, 3:14 am I previously wrote an abridged version in the thread Re: Can't we ever see the real world? and reported on it in an abbreviated form in https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... hp?t=15839. I would like to discuss this topic in more detail here. The following considerations are based on just 2 findings/observations:

1. The starting point is the realization that we are not objective observers of reality because of our egoism (selfishness, self-care, self-centeredness). Rather, we are partisan, biased observers. There is therefore a possibility that we do not see reality as it actually is. Fortunately, while it is not possible to go directly into the state of selflessness (in which we would be objective, impartial observers), there is an easy way - through a simple logical deduction - to find out what reality would be like in that state.

2. Here the starting point is the recognition that there are subjectively significant limits as a result of our egoism (selfishness, self-care, self-centeredness). Now, using a simple inversion, we can state that in the state of SELFLESSNESS (where by definition there is no egoism) there are no subjectively meaningful boundaries; i.e. that this state can be seen as a state of limitlessness and infinity and, moreover, as a state of freedom. Because in the state of unselfishness we would see things as they actually are, it follows that there really are no meaningful boundaries. Our egoism makes us believe that there are limits and it is also the one that constructs our reality, ie. it pretends it to us.

You can judge how far I have succeeded in this derivation and I would be happy to read about it in the comments. I will continue these thoughts afterwards.
Even before you think about whether valid knowledge was gained here, you have to ask yourself why these thoughts were not thought much earlier. For example, in his Allegory of the Cave, Plato might have associated the underground prison with the state of selfishness, and might have an association of the state of freedom that a prisoner attains in the parable after being brought out of the cave to the surface with the state of selflessness.

The Advaita-Vedanta philosophy arose in India much earlier than the allegory of the cave was conceived. Its serotological goal is to experience the unity between the Atman, the core of the individual personality, the individual self, and Brahman (the cosmic self, the cause of EVERYTHING). This unity is taken as always given in this philosophy, but cannot be experienced in everyday consciousness. As previously described here, in the state of selflessness there are no limits and there is only oneness. Thus, in this state, the serotological goal of this philosophy is achieved. Here, too, one has to ask oneself why this knowledge has only now become possible. The answer can only be that a taboo, an inhibition to think, has so far prevented comprehensive reflection on selflessness. In Hindu philosophy there is the term Maya. Maya means illusion and magic. It is an integral part of Advaita-Vedanta. So Advaita-Vedanta teaches that our world is an illusion and explains the mental inhibition with magic.

Now let's take a closer look at the state of selflessness. The only thing that matters here is the Self, the Atman in Indian philosophy, the unqualified core of personality, the observer. Everything else, the koshas in Indian philosophy, the sheaths have become meaningless, no longer exist because they have limitations. But this also applies to much more: space, time, causality, conceptual thinking, material objects are no longer available.

There is no boundary between the subjective and the objective realm. That means: everything that exists is my thoughts, everything that exists is created by my thoughts. However, for the loss of all of the above, one is compensated in a great way. There are no limits to my personal power. What hurts us most in ordinary life, in the state of selfishness, is that we are constantly experiencing limitations in our personal power. That pain is no longer there, instead there is infinite well-being.

One could explain this unlimited power by the unity of the personal SELF, Atman, with the cosmic Self, Brahman (endowed with omnipotence). But since, as mentioned, there is no conceptual thinking in the state of selflessness, one also has to regard Brahman as a construction that is given only in the state of selfishness and not as something that actually exists.

I assume that this all could be subject for discussion and I would therefore like to pause again before continuing.
How can we reach the state of unselfishness, that desirable state; how should the path to this goal look like?

1. Since the goal is the state of selflessness, the path must be free from egocentric elements.

2. Since the goal is a state of complete freedom, there must be no restrictions on this path. This means that anyone who follows this path may keep the same thoughts and opinions, they can act in the same way as before, regardless of how these actions are judged by the public.

3. This argument is a bit more complicated: you need to look at what was said before. All of these thoughts were fairly simple and easy to understand. The question is, why weren't they thought of much earlier, why weren't there people who thought that a few thousand years ago? - The intellectual capacity of early humans was probably not the limiter. The reason for this restriction must have been that there was a taboo, an inhibition that only allowed the terms egoism/egocentrism and selflessness to be used inadequately in the epistemological sense. The use of these terms was previously only possible in an ethical-moral context. One bypassed the forbidden areas without realizing it, one did not realize that a taboo existed. However, this taboo was already broken at the beginning of the chain of arguments by stating that "due to our egoism/egocentricity we are not objective observers of reality". Here egoism was used in an epistemological sense. The question now arises, why after breaking this taboo is it still not possible to experience the freedom of the state of selflessness, why this knowledge cannot be assimilated? - The answer to this can only be: We humans are all connected because there are no limits in the state of selflessness, and it is therefore difficult for a single individual to break away from the general consensus. The goal will be achieved to the extent that many people have broken the taboo and recognized the knowledge hidden behind it.

All three criteria taken together mean that everyone who walks this path does so by acknowledging the knowledge imparted and by inviting others to walk this path as well. Everyone issues invitations, which the invitee can also invite in the same way. Nothing more is required.

Anyone who participates in the dissemination of knowledge trains their mind so that it works optimally, i.e. unselfishly. I will explain this in more detail and make a suggestion on how to conveniently implement this.

There is a second train of thought that leads to the same result:

As a starting point, the question will be asked what is the cause of all of humanity's problems. Human EGOISM is assumed here to be this cause. This is not about moral judgments. It doesn't matter whether someone in need consumes environmental resources to survive, for example by clearing a piece of rainforest, or someone who lives in luxury does so in order to be able to enjoy even more luxury. In both cases, environmental resources are used to the same extent. It is also irrelevant to the outcome of a war whether you are an aggressor or a defender; in both cases there is killing, injuring and destroying. Instead of egoism, one could also say that self-care or simply egocentricity is the cause of all problems.

It is clear that it is not possible to bring about behavioral change directly; There are power structures against which nothing can be done. However, it is possible to influence INDIRECTLY by countering selfish action with SELFLESS ACTION.

A second aspect in this context is that there is not much you can do as an individual. Taken together, they result in a very special kind of selfless action that makes it effective without consuming your own resources and without personal sacrifice: you invite others to join the program. No one needs to change their attitudes or behavior. The benefit is particularly favorable in relation to the effort. In many cases, no additional effort is quickly required.

In order to achieve exponential growth in this way, everyone who participates should win at least 2 direct successors. Now, assuming that it takes an average of 1 week to reach this, it takes 30 weeks to get 2^30, i.e. 1.09 billion participants. One can assume that profound positive changes are already taking place here. However, the time of 30 weeks seems to me to be too short for that. I believe that the assumption of 1 week for recruiting 2 successors is therefore not enough. However, you should still try.

For the second way, I would like to open a separate thread and announce there how you can take part, where you can register and how you can invite new members. I will then also announce this here.
In the meantime, a third train of thought has occurred to me, which results in the same practical action as with the previously mentioned train of thought.

This is about democracy, the form of organization with the greatest possible freedom for the individual. Democracies are threatened from without by their enemies and from within by decay and erosion. It needs to be maintained through activity. This activity cannot be a measure carried out from above, decreed by the representatives of this form of democracy. Democracy can only be enlivened from the bottom up, through action by citizens that stimulates a sense of community. These are all forms of the exercise of direct democracy, such as citizens' meetings to form a common conviction and interest formation, the exercise of institutional referendums as well as demonstrations and rallies to announce the interests and wishes of parts of the population.

Through the path described above, direct democracy receives strong impulses and can therefore promote free forms of community in a significant way.

Contrary to the previous announcement, only one page for all three trains of thought is currently to be offered for practical implementation: https://manifestoup.com/a .

Everyone who participates here also trains their own consciousness to function in an optimal way. See also https://manifestoup.com/save-our-world.html.

There is also the site https://manifestoup.com/i which lays out all the basic ideas and is constantly evolving.
If you want to register, it is necessary to specify an inviter, please use
https://manifestoup.com/a/?InviterID=324-1836311541 for that.
Thank you!
User avatar
Baby Augustine
Posts: 31
Joined: November 24th, 2022, 10:30 am

Re: Is our reality just a construction?

Post by Baby Augustine »

Three clarifications
1) To see things n black and white that are in color is not falsification, it is true as far as it goes and for some questions it answers better

2) We will never comprehend God and so Creation itself is not a 'thing' that can be seen whole

3) Why would a construction be false anyway, our uniqueness picks things out from the unplumbable depth of meaning but maybe not all, But that is because of who we are , another case of true as far as it goes.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021