on accepting the truths of other realities ...
i suppose i should take a few minutes to define some terms, before i senselessly ramble on about concepts that i don't really understand. it just seems like the right thing to do. that and i always hear the voice of my junior college -- lower division + existential -- philosophy professor (joanne bielick) saying "always define your terms."
so ...
truth - the factual perception of one's reality
as compared to
Truth - total and complete factual record
and
reality - the world that is relative to the individual, serving as the base for all of the individual's perceptions
as compared to
Reality - the world that is shared by all individuals, serving as the quarry from which their realities are mined. this means that all individual realities are dependent upon a greater truer reality that provides all of the "material" needed ... or perceived. it is truer because it is based upon, and in symbiosis with, that total and complete factual record.
of course, i lower case all letters when i type for the internet (a stylistic preference). so will try and make a distinction if i am referring to the capitalized or interdependent definitions, as compared to my common place use of the two lower cased or independent definitions. i will define anything else as needed.
--
the scenario: i feel myself often faced with the conflict of the importance of the two worlds. all rationality would say that my world is greater and more important than other worlds, being that it is not only my creation, but the only world that i will ever know -- regardless of events or realizations -- possibly beyond the day that i die.
yet, i am instinctively convinced that the truer reality and its truth are in fact the greater ones, even though i do not think i can grasp it -- thus the capitalization in the above definitions. and moreover, i believe that virtually all other people also recognize this instinctively.
--
i said to preacher mike, in the aforementioned conversation (circa the day of the london bombings), that i didn't have an answer. i think i mentioned that he said i should not assume that it is correct to assign more value to the other reality. but i find that to be more playing the devil's advocate, rather than offering clarity to my confusion.
but i told him that night that i would have it all figured out within a week. of course, i am still just as confused. i have thought of a few things. really, i think it's a fool's game. i am convinced that our individual realities are more alike than they are similar to the greater reality upon which they are dependent.
here is an example. it is based upon a common example that my metaphysics professor often used in college. i won't name him because i wasn't to impressed with him as either a teacher or a philosopher. though, i should note that i find it odd how much better the instructors as junior college were compared to the instructors at the university (barring the adjunct faculty, who were always on the top of their game). but of course, i digress. so ... here is the example:
the two of us are standing in the same room. there is nothing in the room other than a plain green desk with a single drawer and even legs. in fact, there is nothing out of the ordinary about this desk whatsoever. it is, for all theoretical intents and purposes, ideal. and so is the room.
the two of us, on the other hand, are of different heights, weights, genders, economic backgrounds, ethnicities (and on and on). the distances from the desk, as well as the views employed, are of no consequence. all of these variables would be perfectly reasonable in a practical world.
the language: there is, of course, no reason for us to assume that we would have the same terms for the desk, its color, or our perceptions of it. with this, in theory, we have severed all expected ties between you and i in relation to our sharing the experience of the desk. i tell you that i see a green desk. you, of course, have no idea what i said. but with time and patience, simply repeating the words and pointing, i can relate to you that "desk" is what i call the object, and "green" is what i call the color.
perception: now that we know that it is a green desk, we have to figure out what a green desk is to us. for example, do you even notice that it has a drawer? do you see it as something other than a table? and the answers are that it doesn't matter.
the greater reality at ends with our shared realities: here is the monkey wrench. we can all accept that green could, in theory, be colorless and based only on the way that light is reflected off of one object and into our eyes. not only could the object not really be green, but the colors that we are seeing could not be the same whatsoever. if i could see what color you are seeing, maybe i would see that you are seeing only red, but that you see all red objects as "green." and conversely, if you saw what i was seeing, maybe you would see that i was seeing only blue and calling it green, as with all objects of similar ilk.
for the greater reality, there is no color (again, this is an assumption as i have no way of accurately interpreting the greater reality). in fact, for the greater reality, there isn't even a concept of color as the individual perception of any individual object has no bearing on the greater interdependent truth.
at this point in time, you and i have come to a relatable conclusion (that the desk is green). we came to it because of our incorrect shared perception of the greater reality, yet we are in agreement with each other ... accepting that even our agreement could be incorrect. but no matter what, our agreement with each other is more in tune than either of our perceptions to the greater reality.
further still, we have come to the (much easier to accept) agreement on the object being called a desk, regardless of the practical use. and the reason for such is that we can both see practical uses for the desk. the greater reality is, of course, not concerned with the practical applications of individual objects. for the greater reality, the desk (as are we) is just a non-random collection of molecules that, in whole, make up the universe. there is no concept of individual objects or and specific collection of molecules.
--
of course, this distinction is of little importance to our realities or the point of this post. no, the effort is to discover why it is that my reality is not the most important reality. and really, so far i have merely demonstrated two things. one, that my reality is not similar to the truer reality despite being dependent upon it. and two, that if i show effort, i can get you to see my reality easier than either of us can see the greater reality.
these things only go further to reinforce the notion that my reality is more important -- a notion that i believe is incorrect.
--
where i am trying to get: i want to demonstrate that the actions of individuals should be based on a conscious realization of interdependence. but the more i think about it, the further i get. nonetheless, i have found myself at the same conclusion accepting only my own reality plus one not-so-risky assumption: the realities of all individuals have the same value.
why? well, because anything i can say about my reality, any other individual can say about theirs. at the same time, i know that all of the individual realities are dependent upon the greater reality.
using that, i see that if i base my actions upon what i believe is best for the greater reality (no matter how wrong i am), i will be doing what is right for the greatest number of people, starting with and mainly benefiting my own reality.
no matter how wrong i am because the greater reality is not concerned with individuality at all, so i cannot be wrong. the greatest number of people because despite the discrepancies in shared realities, all realities are dependent upon the greater one.
i don't really know if any of that made sense. maybe i will come back and read it later on and see if i still think so. if that is the case, i may make some edits. oh ... and the photos: the top one is just a photo of the sunrise. the sunrise and sunset are probably the most common misperceptions of light -- after all, the sky certainly does not change color, if it has any color at all. the second image is of immanuel kant, whose discussions of duty and a priori v. a posteriori has influenced this entry a great deal.
the first addendum: i should note that i believe that to act on behalf of the greater reality is often manifested on an individual level by doing what is best for the individuals involved. and that to be incorrect about other realities mattering more than my own in judging how i should act has little consequence. after all, if i created it all, than i created it to act with agape, adore and consideration.
so ...truth - the factual perception of one's reality
as compared to
Truth - total and complete factual record
and
reality - the world that is relative to the individual, serving as the base for all of the individual's perceptions
as compared to
Reality - the world that is shared by all individuals, serving as the quarry from which their realities are mined. this means that all individual realities are dependent upon a greater truer reality that provides all of the "material" needed ... or perceived. it is truer because it is based upon, and in symbiosis with, that total and complete factual record.
of course, i lower case all letters when i type for the internet (a stylistic preference). so will try and make a distinction if i am referring to the capitalized or interdependent definitions, as compared to my common place use of the two lower cased or independent definitions. i will define anything else as needed.
--
the scenario: i feel myself often faced with the conflict of the importance of the two worlds. all rationality would say that my world is greater and more important than other worlds, being that it is not only my creation, but the only world that i will ever know -- regardless of events or realizations -- possibly beyond the day that i die.
yet, i am instinctively convinced that the truer reality and its truth are in fact the greater ones, even though i do not think i can grasp it -- thus the capitalization in the above definitions. and moreover, i believe that virtually all other people also recognize this instinctively.
--
i said to preacher mike, in the aforementioned conversation (circa the day of the london bombings), that i didn't have an answer. i think i mentioned that he said i should not assume that it is correct to assign more value to the other reality. but i find that to be more playing the devil's advocate, rather than offering clarity to my confusion.
but i told him that night that i would have it all figured out within a week. of course, i am still just as confused. i have thought of a few things. really, i think it's a fool's game. i am convinced that our individual realities are more alike than they are similar to the greater reality upon which they are dependent.
here is an example. it is based upon a common example that my metaphysics professor often used in college. i won't name him because i wasn't to impressed with him as either a teacher or a philosopher. though, i should note that i find it odd how much better the instructors as junior college were compared to the instructors at the university (barring the adjunct faculty, who were always on the top of their game). but of course, i digress. so ... here is the example:
the two of us are standing in the same room. there is nothing in the room other than a plain green desk with a single drawer and even legs. in fact, there is nothing out of the ordinary about this desk whatsoever. it is, for all theoretical intents and purposes, ideal. and so is the room.
the two of us, on the other hand, are of different heights, weights, genders, economic backgrounds, ethnicities (and on and on). the distances from the desk, as well as the views employed, are of no consequence. all of these variables would be perfectly reasonable in a practical world.
the language: there is, of course, no reason for us to assume that we would have the same terms for the desk, its color, or our perceptions of it. with this, in theory, we have severed all expected ties between you and i in relation to our sharing the experience of the desk. i tell you that i see a green desk. you, of course, have no idea what i said. but with time and patience, simply repeating the words and pointing, i can relate to you that "desk" is what i call the object, and "green" is what i call the color.
perception: now that we know that it is a green desk, we have to figure out what a green desk is to us. for example, do you even notice that it has a drawer? do you see it as something other than a table? and the answers are that it doesn't matter.
the greater reality at ends with our shared realities: here is the monkey wrench. we can all accept that green could, in theory, be colorless and based only on the way that light is reflected off of one object and into our eyes. not only could the object not really be green, but the colors that we are seeing could not be the same whatsoever. if i could see what color you are seeing, maybe i would see that you are seeing only red, but that you see all red objects as "green." and conversely, if you saw what i was seeing, maybe you would see that i was seeing only blue and calling it green, as with all objects of similar ilk.
for the greater reality, there is no color (again, this is an assumption as i have no way of accurately interpreting the greater reality). in fact, for the greater reality, there isn't even a concept of color as the individual perception of any individual object has no bearing on the greater interdependent truth.
at this point in time, you and i have come to a relatable conclusion (that the desk is green). we came to it because of our incorrect shared perception of the greater reality, yet we are in agreement with each other ... accepting that even our agreement could be incorrect. but no matter what, our agreement with each other is more in tune than either of our perceptions to the greater reality.
further still, we have come to the (much easier to accept) agreement on the object being called a desk, regardless of the practical use. and the reason for such is that we can both see practical uses for the desk. the greater reality is, of course, not concerned with the practical applications of individual objects. for the greater reality, the desk (as are we) is just a non-random collection of molecules that, in whole, make up the universe. there is no concept of individual objects or and specific collection of molecules.
--
of course, this distinction is of little importance to our realities or the point of this post. no, the effort is to discover why it is that my reality is not the most important reality. and really, so far i have merely demonstrated two things. one, that my reality is not similar to the truer reality despite being dependent upon it. and two, that if i show effort, i can get you to see my reality easier than either of us can see the greater reality.
these things only go further to reinforce the notion that my reality is more important -- a notion that i believe is incorrect.
--
where i am trying to get: i want to demonstrate that the actions of individuals should be based on a conscious realization of interdependence. but the more i think about it, the further i get. nonetheless, i have found myself at the same conclusion accepting only my own reality plus one not-so-risky assumption: the realities of all individuals have the same value.why? well, because anything i can say about my reality, any other individual can say about theirs. at the same time, i know that all of the individual realities are dependent upon the greater reality.
using that, i see that if i base my actions upon what i believe is best for the greater reality (no matter how wrong i am), i will be doing what is right for the greatest number of people, starting with and mainly benefiting my own reality.
no matter how wrong i am because the greater reality is not concerned with individuality at all, so i cannot be wrong. the greatest number of people because despite the discrepancies in shared realities, all realities are dependent upon the greater one.
i don't really know if any of that made sense. maybe i will come back and read it later on and see if i still think so. if that is the case, i may make some edits. oh ... and the photos: the top one is just a photo of the sunrise. the sunrise and sunset are probably the most common misperceptions of light -- after all, the sky certainly does not change color, if it has any color at all. the second image is of immanuel kant, whose discussions of duty and a priori v. a posteriori has influenced this entry a great deal.
the first addendum: i should note that i believe that to act on behalf of the greater reality is often manifested on an individual level by doing what is best for the individuals involved. and that to be incorrect about other realities mattering more than my own in judging how i should act has little consequence. after all, if i created it all, than i created it to act with agape, adore and consideration.
posted by jeames morgan at
5:48:00 PM
3 Comments:
Anytime I see an article (or blog post) concerning reality, I digest it and then stare at it because I tend to feel like I have to say something.
My views on reality are already well-developed. I saw many problems and many debates that were philosophical, political and beyond. By whatever grace, my instincts led me to confusion regarding the issues. So I thought about them. It didn't take me long to spot a pattern. I easily recognized different levels of concioussness. You may substitute conciousness for emotion, comprehending, thought process, etc. Verbalizing is a different level than what we actually feel; words are just definitions for things actually in reality. They build onto it. (One of these days, I will figure out how to communicate without words. I believe it's a much better way.) In essence, they are complications.
An example is technology. The more complex you make technology, the more ways there are to break it.
I saw issue after issue rise and rise again; people made it complex. I began to recognize many patterns, underlying fundamentals in their thoughts, that allowed each issue to take place. I (view)ed it as incredibly stupid.
Your instincts are that the greater reality is more important. Mine was that there was a universal answer to everything, and that it was not a complexity but a simplicity; indeed the simplest. The simplest thing would fit in everywhere. I found it, at least for me.
Once more your greater reality sounds very Buddhist like. Their version of ultimate reality is actually easily explained (though not experienced). You and I are in a fight. You hit me in the face. By what I feel and see, there's no doubt that you've hit me. But if we look at the fight through a powerful electron microscope, we aren't even there. Instead, we see particles as far apart as stars. The example could be furthered that if we looked at it through the eyes of an Enlightened being, we would recognize that each particle is a wave of energy with no definite boundary. Which means that everything is one piece. A greater, external reality where altering our perception is the key to perceiving it. Something that is everything and nothing; indeed it's incorrect to think of it as a "thing".
I liked this idea at first because I thought that if my universal answer was anywhere, it was there. However, I did not meditate or anything like that.
The reason is that I long ago decided everything is correct and perfect in a purely physical sense. Everything must strive for its own existence if it is to exist at all; nothing (again we are speaking non-emotionally) will engage in self-destructive behavior. Following this natural path of self-existence and continuing a joyful existence is how things are meant to operate because every being is alive and will enjoy it at one point in their life; and they will prefer this feeling of joy as opposed to its opposite. I called this the Path of Life, and by observation paired it with the word Logic. But, I said, what of the people who do not always act so rationally, meaning they engage in self-destructive behavior? I cannot begin to fathom the reasoning behind it, other than somewhere the chain was started and they continue it because they know no better. But I termed it Illogical. Somewhere they have lost their reasoning and strive either for the death of their existence, for the death of what you term greater Reality, or for the death of other people. The other people are not consenting. And certainly you cannot destroy Reality - it is and will be. Thinking of non-existence is impossible because we know nothing else in the same way thinking of a type of matter other than solid, liquid or gas (or somewhere in between) is impossible. Therefore by definition, just because existence is, even if it experiences individual deaths inside of it, it ultimately also follows the Path of Life. We also cannot say what this Reality is for certain. All we know are our own realities. So actually, the mention of this Reality is useless for any point in this. But the point of it was to compare it to the Buddhist ultimate reality.
Ultimate reality is contradictory for many reasons. Contradictions cannot exist on the same level because they violate each other and end existence, literally. A glass cannot and will not ever be both too big and too small from a person unless they say, "if you look at it this way... but if you look at it that way." It is irrational. The Path of Life is coded into us all. Why is a simple answer. Because we exist. Because we live.
That is also my universal answer. Life. "I found it, at least for me." It's the "for me". We live. We perceive. We have nothing else but that perception.
With this answer, I decided no one has a right to take or forcefully, negatively, in the name of the code of death, my perception. And there, if every being follows that, you have an end to war, you have an answer to the issue of Terry Shiavo. I can apply it to Government in a big way. I can apply it to religion. I can apply it to anything because it is everything. We all have it and we all want to follow it. I would not even be saying this now, Jeames, if it weren't for the fact that people seem not to know this and I find it a pity.
The realm of thought, life, conciousness, perception, is in us all. You can't define a "greater reality" with it just because we barely grasp the idea of pure objectivity. Pure objectivity is imaginary because no one has experienced it and the definition is, therefore, crap. You can't define an "ultimate reality" with it because the two contradict each other - at least how Buddhists define ultimate reality anymore. Life is the ultimate reality. I don't know how to explain this very well. And I'm sincerely sorry for that; sorry for myself because I can't accurately convey it, and I think so many more people would enjoy things if I could. Buddhism is now just another religion. Whatever truth it once conveyed is now lost. They even predicted it would happen one day and so made a savior with the prediction to come and right it. They tried to convert other people's perceptions. They followed the path of death and stagnated.
I'm sorry. I thought this post would come out to a good conclusion, but once again I flounder in semantics. I cannot define what I know. Maybe I'm taking the wrong approach.
By
Anonyme, at 7:34 PM
it does not suprise me that you see so many similarities with what i write and what buddhists believe. after 2,500 years, you would think they have caught on to a couple of things ... things that i have caught on to in less than 30 years of existence.
of course, i have no interest in buddhism. if i am correct that my reality is the paramount reality with regard to my own existence (which is certainly what logic dictates), then it is my responsibility to form my own cosmology and understanding of this physical world.
this does not stand at ends with this entry, as the point of this entry was to draw lines showing why it is that our pathologies should, in my opinion, be determined by that greater reality despite what logic dictates.
the distinction to be made here is one that we often make in our minds. people are often trying to figure out "who they are." and will often tell you that "no one really knows them" or that "so-and-so really understands them." this is rooted in what i am discussing here in trying to deal with the existence of two worlds, though incapable of understanding the greater one.
you really have two identities. to see them, you should break yourself into three pieces. the first: who you feel you are inside. the second: who other people perceive you as. the third: how you think that others perceive you. if you put these three things together, you have the complete array of who you are. and you can clearly see that the first and last of these have a sybiotic relationship.
most people incorrectly assume that they are only the first. but the truth is they are only the second one. only the second one is parter of the greater collective, the first and the third go with you if/when you die. and never can you actually share them with someone else. if you think you are sharing the first, you are actually sharing the second. if you think you are sharing the third, you are actually just experiencing the third. and so on, but you can do all the thinking on that for yourself, as it has little bearing on this comment.
but esentially, you are left with the realization that you are only what is perceived by and part of the greater collective, or atman, or whatever you wish to call it. i prefer atman because i think it logically explains one of the two most plausible existences for god (god being defined as the parent of existence/life/universe).
either way, pathology has more impact than perception, and a different nature. and the nature that i was speaking of in this entry was pathology.
i guess i would say to you that religions are crutches that people use to limp through the dealing with not being able to comprehend ... well ... themselves. i think the buddha would have agreed with me. and i think that he would also agree that buddhism is still a crutch. when he said throw off religion, he didn't say except mine.
By
jeames morgan, at 1:56 PM
i like the last comment regarding buddha. the little i read on zen made me think along a certain route i never would've been introduced to otherwise, not for a long time; i'm sixteen. i also agree that religions are crutches and have for a while
i don't like this idea because it seems as though you are almost trying to strip away individuality in a certain way. i agree with your assumptions; it's only logical. but i don't think that atman is more important than i am, or that how others perceive me should affect me. all I have is the "me" and the logic of my instincts that come with it.
A is A - if i share a good moment with a friend, one where we both come to know each other better, maybe learn something about ourselves, that we can look back on and in retrospect feel happy about, we know it's a good moment. not being able to completely understand or comprehend each other's mind is something i would sooner blame on the limitation of spoken word.
what i'm struggling with is your idea that the atman is the "greater good" because it benefits the most people. I just don't understand where the fuck in life I'm expected to benefit others' happiness before my own. the above little paragraph compliments this somehow, but i've forgotten because i'm rather groggy at the moment
By
Anonyme, at 2:05 PM
Enregistrer un commentaire
<< Home