Is our reality just a construction?

[gheinz]

You seem to be ignoring that what we experience is our own mind, which is a miniature model of the world, inside our head (representationalism / indirect realism).

No amount of unselfisness can change this, our reality is always a construction. But unselfishness can usually dramatically improve the accuracy, clarity of the construction.

Selflessness means not only being impartial, but also having no wants, no needs. So there is no need for action, in particular no need to create a construction. Therefore, the state of unselfishness is a state in which there are no constructions; here we see reality as it really is. As I have already written, everything that makes up our reality, space, time, causality, conceptual thinking, material objects, etc., has become meaningless, does not exist anymore. I would like to add in particular that also the body has become meaningless.

Looks like a common perversion of nondualism. There are two levels to the construction: the human mind itself is a construct, a model of reality, that's what I mentioned. And it can work in let's say two different ways: conceptual thinking and non-conceptual thinking.

...the human mind itself is a construct…"
The human mind (YOU) who believes: "...the human mind itself is a construct…" I.e. You believe: The human mind itself is a construct, i.e. it does not really exist!
A ridiculous claim because it contradicts itself.

A typical Hindu solipsistic megalomania, an unintentionally(?) malignant philosophy.

The unfriendly comment at the end suggests that you already suspect or even know that you are sitting on a shambles because your ideas, which may have been there for a long time, have not proven to be viable.

[Atla]

You seem to be ignoring that what we experience is our own mind, which is a miniature model of the world, inside our head (representationalism / indirect realism).

No amount of unselfisness can change this, our reality is always a construction. But unselfishness can usually dramatically improve the accuracy, clarity of the construction.

Selflessness means not only being impartial, but also having no wants, no needs. So there is no need for action, in particular no need to create a construction. Therefore, the state of unselfishness is a state in which there are no constructions; here we see reality as it really is. As I have already written, everything that makes up our reality, space, time, causality, conceptual thinking, material objects, etc., has become meaningless, does not exist anymore. I would like to add in particular that also the body has become meaningless.

Looks like a common perversion of nondualism. There are two levels to the construction: the human mind itself is a construct, a model of reality, that's what I mentioned. And it can work in let's say two different ways: conceptual thinking and non-conceptual thinking.

...the human mind itself is a construct…"
The human mind (YOU) who believes: "...the human mind itself is a construct…" I.e. You believe: The human mind itself is a construct, i.e. it does not really exist!
A ridiculous claim because it contradicts itself.

A typical Hindu solipsistic megalomania, an unintentionally(?) malignant philosophy.

The unfriendly comment at the end suggests that you already suspect or even know that you are sitting on a shambles because your ideas, which may have been there for a long time, have not proven to be viable.

Nope, you walked straight into a basic trap. You don't understand that the human mind is itself a construct in a sense (representationalism / indirect realism).

[gheinz]

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.

[3017Metaphysician]

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.

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.

[Pattern-chaser]

Please understand that I do not wish to discuss the alternative points of view presented.

Then please understand why I have unsubscribed from this topic.

[gheinz]

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.

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.

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.

[Count Lucanor]

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.

The starting point is quite objectionable. Egoism is concerned with the interests or motivations behind one's actions, but those actions are observable, too, in the sense that they are intertwined with the world in which the subject dwells. Egoism is then an attitude towards the world which privileges self-interest in our actions . One could adopt a different attitude that does not privilege such self-interest, but an attitude towards the world still remains. The world is still there as a domain in which our actions (and many other things independent of ourselves) take place.

[gheinz]

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.

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.

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.

[gheinz]

You seem to be ignoring that what we experience is our own mind, which is a miniature model of the world, inside our head (representationalism / indirect realism).

No amount of unselfisness can change this, our reality is always a construction. But unselfishness can usually dramatically improve the accuracy, clarity of the construction.

Selflessness means not only being impartial, but also having no wants, no needs. So there is no need for action, in particular no need to create a construction. Therefore, the state of unselfishness is a state in which there are no constructions; here we see reality as it really is. As I have already written, everything that makes up our reality, space, time, causality, conceptual thinking, material objects, etc., has become meaningless, does not exist anymore. I would like to add in particular that also the body has become meaningless.

Looks like a common perversion of nondualism. There are two levels to the construction: the human mind itself is a construct, a model of reality, that's what I mentioned. And it can work in let's say two different ways: conceptual thinking and non-conceptual thinking.

...the human mind itself is a construct…"
The human mind (YOU) who believes: "...the human mind itself is a construct…" I.e. You believe: The human mind itself is a construct, i.e. it does not really exist!
A ridiculous claim because it contradicts itself.

A typical Hindu solipsistic megalomania, an unintentionally(?) malignant philosophy.

The unfriendly comment at the end suggests that you already suspect or even know that you are sitting on a shambles because your ideas, which may have been there for a long time, have not proven to be viable.

Nope, you walked straight into a basic trap. You don't understand that the human mind is itself a construct in a sense (representationalism / indirect realism).

Human mind is a construction; i.e. it doesn't really exist. Because this is true for all people, it is true for you too, Atla. Is that actually your opinion of yourself, that you don't really exist?

[gheinz]

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.

The starting point is quite objectionable. Egoism is concerned with the interests or motivations behind one's actions, but those actions are observable, too, in the sense that they are intertwined with the world in which the subject dwells. Egoism is then an attitude towards the world which privileges self-interest in our actions . One could adopt a different attitude that does not privilege such self-interest, but an attitude towards the world still remains. The world is still there as a domain in which our actions (and many other things independent of ourselves) take place.

For me, selfishness means that I draw a line between myself and the world. Ultimately, it's all about my interests, I'm not really interested in anything else (I don't mean myself personally here, of course, but I can't completely exclude myself).
I do not believe that there is selfishness in the objective sense, i.e. I do not believe that there is selfishness without there being an individual who thinks or acts selfishly.

[Atla]

Human mind is a construction; i.e. it doesn't really exist. Because this is true for all people, it is true for you too, Atla. Is that actually your opinion of yourself, that you don't really exist?

The human mind is a more concrete construct, it totally exists.

[3017Metaphysician]

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.

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.

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?

[Count Lucanor]

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.

The starting point is quite objectionable. Egoism is concerned with the interests or motivations behind one's actions, but those actions are observable, too, in the sense that they are intertwined with the world in which the subject dwells. Egoism is then an attitude towards the world which privileges self-interest in our actions . One could adopt a different attitude that does not privilege such self-interest, but an attitude towards the world still remains. The world is still there as a domain in which our actions (and many other things independent of ourselves) take place.

For me, selfishness means that I draw a line between myself and the world. Ultimately, it's all about my interests, I'm not really interested in anything else (I don't mean myself personally here, of course, but I can't completely exclude myself).
I do not believe that there is selfishness in the objective sense, i.e. I do not believe that there is selfishness without there being an individual who thinks or acts selfishly.

Yes, but the point is that even though one can act as a subjective perceiver of the world, the act itself requires that one behaves as if the world existed objectively, independent of oneself, and accept that the act of perception involves something real.

[gheinz]

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.

The starting point is quite objectionable. Egoism is concerned with the interests or motivations behind one's actions, but those actions are observable, too, in the sense that they are intertwined with the world in which the subject dwells. Egoism is then an attitude towards the world which privileges self-interest in our actions . One could adopt a different attitude that does not privilege such self-interest, but an attitude towards the world still remains. The world is still there as a domain in which our actions (and many other things independent of ourselves) take place.

For me, selfishness means that I draw a line between myself and the world. Ultimately, it's all about my interests, I'm not really interested in anything else (I don't mean myself personally here, of course, but I can't completely exclude myself).
I do not believe that there is selfishness in the objective sense, i.e. I do not believe that there is selfishness without there being an individual who thinks or acts selfishly.

Yes, but the point is that even though one can act as a subjective perceiver of the world, the act itself requires that one behaves as if the world existed objectively, independent of oneself, and accept that the act of perception involves something real.

"...the act of perception involves something real" - Yes, but "the act of perception" could deliver something wrong because we are not impartial observers.
This does not mean that there are doubt about the existence of reality, there are no doubts that the world exists objectively.

[Count Lucanor]

The starting point is quite objectionable. Egoism is concerned with the interests or motivations behind one's actions, but those actions are observable, too, in the sense that they are intertwined with the world in which the subject dwells. Egoism is then an attitude towards the world which privileges self-interest in our actions . One could adopt a different attitude that does not privilege such self-interest, but an attitude towards the world still remains. The world is still there as a domain in which our actions (and many other things independent of ourselves) take place.

For me, selfishness means that I draw a line between myself and the world. Ultimately, it's all about my interests, I'm not really interested in anything else (I don't mean myself personally here, of course, but I can't completely exclude myself).
I do not believe that there is selfishness in the objective sense, i.e. I do not believe that there is selfishness without there being an individual who thinks or acts selfishly.

Yes, but the point is that even though one can act as a subjective perceiver of the world, the act itself requires that one behaves as if the world existed objectively, independent of oneself, and accept that the act of perception involves something real.

"...the act of perception involves something real" - Yes, but "the act of perception" could deliver something wrong because we are not impartial observers.
This does not mean that there are doubt about the existence of reality, there are no doubts that the world exists objectively.

Whether the act of perception could deliver something wrong or not, does not conflict with us being impartial observers. When taking the role of "observer", one is acknowledging the existence of a domain of the observed that is distinct from the subject that observes, even though the subject can include himself in the domain of observable things.