Thread: Reality Is Not Perception

Are you sure?

Originally Posted by Snowkitten

Are you sure?

ROFL

Thanks for posting! Am I sure of what?

Perhaps I went over the top; perhaps I didn't.

Does anyone see what I am "getting at?"



Sure, it may seem lame, awkward and unreasonable. But I am prodding you with a stick, aren't I?

What point is there to acknowledging the existence of a reality that cannot be viewed for the very act of viewing (or acknowledging) it makes it something other than what it is?

Your post can best be summed up: "I am, therefore I am." since thought is of little to no use in the argument, based on the premises you set up... right?

Let me know if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by bcomp

What point is there to acknowledging the existence of a reality that cannot be viewed for the very act of viewing (or acknowledging) it makes it something other than what it is?

Right! What is the point of perceiving the Truth that already Self-Exists? The Self-effulgence of existence would render perception useless, especially if it is arbitrary and personal anyway.

If it is within the perceiving, if it is the perceived, if it is perception and beyond, if it is the perceiver and their perception then it does not need to be perceived, known, formulated or comprehended because you are beyond it. It already is the Absolute, how could it be perceived? It could be perceived through error; through the mind.

This is not about viewing, but what is viewing what. What Is.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Your post can best be summed up: "I am, therefore I am." since thought is of little to no use in the argument, based on the premises you set up... right?

Let me know if I'm wrong.

"I", as it Is, is the Absolute from which All is Possible and All Is Known. Then with perception, comes "I am". Then comes this, that, "possession" and a "body" as "I am this and have that." Then, comes what we genius creatures call a "question" (ˈkwes ch ən), and by questioning our Reality "we" automatically ignore what is already self-existent, for the sake of our own inherent arrogance and innocence but essentially "the" egoity. Then comes suffering and the phenomena of "human", in astral, purgatory or "hellish" experience.

At the very core, you are the witnessed and the witness, and to perceive that you need to know anything at all automatically first assumes separation and causality via perception. Nothing is actually required to know the Truth of the All, it merely needs to be recognized as already Self-Existent.

These words, they may be called words, even by themselves, but they are ultimately (not even) shapes in the infinite domain of the Absolute.

Edit:

So what's your point? How does this 'non-philosophy' serve any purpose? Am I to walk around constantly cursing the obstructive nature of my own two eyes? Or vainly attempting to experience a reality that's, by definition, un-experienceable (since experience involves perception)?

So do tell, what's the purpose of explaining an unexplainable concept?

Reality is not perception, perception is reality!

*gasps*

Originally Posted by really

YOU are the ABSOLUTE

Soooooo you agree that reality IS what the individual perceives.. OR you believe that the only real thing is consciousness.

The only unnecessary Question: How do you know this?

It's a convenient question that would allow others to follow up on how you reached your conclusion, much like asking someone how they baked a particular batch of cookies: I really want to bake those same cookies.

Originally Posted by bcomp

So what's your point? How does this 'non-philosophy' serve any purpose?

This is a metaphor for the Truth of All, as it Is, and a conceptual description for discussion. It could relate to the Spirit, but I have contextualized here it in philosophy.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Am I to walk around constantly cursing the obstructive nature of my own two eyes? Or vainly attempting to experience a reality that's, by definition, un-experienceable (since experience involves perception)?

The Ultimate Reality is just that. The "reality of perception", the "world" and "human experience" are not of it. If you want to stay there, you don't have to worry about any Ultimate Reality BS.

Experience involves an "experiencer" or the ego, which is not real, but only as an illusion. Witnessing is beyond experiencing.

Originally Posted by bcomp

So do tell, what's the purpose of explaining an unexplainable concept?

It is not unexplainable. We have concepts to help!

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Reality is not perception, perception is reality!

*gasps*

LOL, I hope I haven't made it out that way.

Originally Posted by Invader

Soooooo you agree that reality IS what the individual perceives.. OR you believe that the only real thing is consciousness.

The only Real thing is nothing, or everything. Consciousness is another thing that falls within everything or nothing, but is not really Reality itself. Perception vs Reality is like Trees vs Forest.

But yes, you are far beyond consciousness. You exist, therefore you exist.

I agree as a brother banana, thusly:

Originally Posted by Invader

It's a convenient question that would allow others to follow up on how you reached your conclusion, much like asking someone how they baked a particular batch of cookies: I really want to bake those same cookies.

Right. I wasn't clear though, I was asking you how you know it, because for the moment {I, really, isn't here, and will view your thread in a few milliseconds instead}.



Edit: I am sorry.

The difference between you and I is, you assume that something you can't observe describe or have any knowledge of whatsoever exists, and I don't.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The difference between you and I is, you assume that something you can't observe describe or have any knowledge of whatsoever exists, and I don't.

I don't assume that. Where did you get that impression?

yer rite, reality is not perception

now, any argument I make after this is purely for mental stimulation and the high I get out of pissing other people off, lol

Originally Posted by really

I don't assume that. Where did you get that impression?

Originally Posted by really

The Absolute Reality is unfalsifiable and irreducible.

...

Originally Posted by really

The Ultimate Reality is just that. The "reality of perception", the "world" and "human experience" are not of it. If you want to stay there, you don't have to worry about any Ultimate Reality BS.

So you're perceiving outside of your own perception now? I didn't realize you were at a higher power level than the rest of us.

Originally Posted by really

It is not unexplainable. We have concepts to help!

Metaphor, description, explanation... all of these things depend on language and our perception of reality. So how, pray tell can they describe a concept that exists wholly outside of what we (the puny humans below you) perceive?

Even so, this concept still has to have an effect on our perceived reality, or else it's useless and falls out of the realm of philosophy into the realm of random speculation.

Not to be a buzzkill or anything...

I should have done this from the beginning, but I was in a different mindset, holding a different approach to the thread. Anyway, my definitions:

Perception
The way I use it, I'd separate it from actual awareness. It may be related to the senses, but it is primarily related to the mind. Perception is of thoughts and the imagination, and therefore it would also include memory. It is concerned with external stimuli. Related to perception are various complexities of conclusions, assumptions, appearances, and "seeming" connections between other knowledge.

A greater consciousness would allow greater intelligence to refine the thoughts and thus the understanding of what is perceived. An even greater consciousness would realize that the intellect cannot know anything. The greatest knowledge can be said to be directly related to your Being. Only you know you; "that "I" (in your case) exist," and that is all. However, the "I" is not "out there." Reality is not Perception.

Reality
Capitalized, it is the Ultimate Real Existence whatsoever, as it Is. Thus, it is not exclusively external stimuli, but the All. It is Real because of what it Is. It is the Absolute, as described above. It is always here, forever, and it is beyond what our small minds perceive. This would mean that Reality is not of the mind, and it is not perceivable or logical. The mind defines things and abstracts them. I can define Reality as a concept in language, but that's all. It is paradoxically undefinable. Nobody can "figure it out", even when it is Known it does not need to be.

In ordinary life, our minds are oblivious to actual Reality. It is taken for granted and ignored, because we are actually lost in our own perceptions and needs. Reality cannot be found or known through perception, Reality can only be perceived through perception. Now, Reality is being perceived. But perception does not have priority over Reality, only apparently through its very own mechanism.

E.g. These words are not actually words, having objective meaning. For some of you, this may be obvious. But what is not obvious that this is what the mind conditions to Reality itself; objective and subjective. Perception has enormous complexity in the mind. Identifying with what we perceive, it is the very reason we have questions to ask from the beginning. Even a question begs for perception and a paradoxical separation from the answer.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

...

Can you elaborate? Assumptions are everywhere. Everywhere. But not everywhere.

How can anybody compare themselves to someone else? It is done in the nature of human beings, through perception.

Originally Posted by bcomp

So you're perceiving outside of your own perception now? I didn't realize you were at a higher power level than the rest of us.

So do you think you have to perceive to be aware of reality? Do I need five (or six) senses to Be? No, and neither do you, because otherwise the senses would be dead. Consciousness and subjectivity are not entirely perception; perception is independent from one's awareness thereof.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Metaphor, description, explanation... all of these things depend on language and our perception of reality. So how, pray tell can they describe a concept that exists wholly outside of what we (the puny humans below you) perceive?

True, this is important to what I am getting at! You are on the right track but concepts can form anything in abstract, that is their purpose. I have simply taken a different method.

What on earth could I be on about? Am I insane? Is this just Art or Phollosofy?

We humans all perceive together. Please don't see me as different from you, it is perception that says some humans are better or worse, higher or lower, and good or evil.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Even so, this concept still has to have an effect on our perceived reality, or else it's useless and falls out of the realm of philosophy into the realm of random speculation.

Not to be a buzzkill or anything...

I know what you're saying, but perception can be humbled. True intuition is not found in perception, either.

Ah I see what you're getting at. But you don't mean perception - the literal act of taking in physical stimuli from the environment and compressing it into qualia - but bias, prejudice, and mindset... the more subjective, personal sense of the word 'perception' that causes conflicts, wars, and ignorance, right? Because that's more of a question of the nature of man than strictly perception.

Though, I do have to disagree with you on the senses issue. I believe we must have at least one sense in order to be aware of our own existence, since a person trapped in his own mind would never recognize the existence of anything else and thus be unable to understand his own existence. But in having that one sense, the person would then perceive, in a strict sense of the word.

And I'm afraid I'm immovable on the point that you should be able to provide a reasonable purpose or motivation for you argument, since even our glorious intuitions are shaped by perceived experiences (and vica versa, of course.)

Originally Posted by bcomp

Ah I see what you're getting at. But you don't mean perception - the literal act of taking in physical stimuli from the environment and compressing it into qualia - but bias, prejudice, and mindset... the more subjective, personal sense of the word 'perception' that causes conflicts, wars, and ignorance, right? Because that's more of a question of the nature of man than strictly perception.

Yeah that's it. I call it perception in the sense that it is how the mind perceives the phenomena it's experiencing, and this brings about a great multitude of consequences, especially those of one's behavior. It is related to thoughts, which although are primarily related to our interests and survival (which are relative to our up-bringing, socio-cultural and technological context), and considering the life-context, there are an infinite amount of complex factors that contribute to a single perspective (regardless of size). Of course, there can still be redundancies, but in the great picture, by definition, every individual is totally unique.

The nature of man would bring up the behavior of man and his contributive perceptions. Perception is simply a necessary tool for survival, and it is an autonomous, inherent element of the animal mind. What determines the likelihoods and proclivities of perception is determined by one's consciousness, but that is another topic altogether.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Though, I do have to disagree with you on the senses issue. I believe we must have at least one sense in order to be aware of our own existence, since a person trapped in his own mind would never recognize the existence of anything else and thus be unable to understand his own existence. But in having that one sense, the person would then perceive, in a strict sense of the word.

I've examined it as that awareness is prior to the senses. You may be able to see, but how do you know you are (seeing)? When I say awareness of existence, I am not talking about any form, but I am talking about existence itself. It could be void of all forms and the physical world as purely subjective, yet the five senses are not required. Thoughts could be considered as another sense. But like perception, they can all be transcended into the illuminated Reality.

Originally Posted by bcomp

And I'm afraid I'm immovable on the point that you should be able to provide a reasonable purpose or motivation for you argument, since even our glorious intuitions are shaped by perceived experiences (and vica versa, of course.)

So do you think it is impossible to transcend all this relativity? That perception cannot be escaped? If so, I have pondered of this before, in one of my old philosophy threads, Forever or Never? I now consider spiritual practice and devotion to mainly be the only ways out of ones judgment. Otherwise, the Truth could never be known, because it is not something to be perceived objectively, but rather it lies as the root of subjectivity and the core of existential knowledge.

___

Edit: Now, what is happening? Here, what is happening? And is any "happening" really so? Behind this very reading itself, are you awake? Remove the curtains, and the light shines forth.

Yesterday this that I see through was eating a piece of lemon pie

Seeing him eat

Seeing him seeing his piece of pie

So simple

Yet so ordinarily hidden

Awareness beyond the physical sense of it

Presence beyond the body seen

Knowing beyond knowledge

An absolute, unfalsifiable and irreducible realty does not exist. Never has, never will. It's merely concept, an attempt make reality fit what we think it should be. Nobody has ever found any absolute truth, it just can't happen.

What is a tree, for example? Or a particular tree, the one in your yard. Is it's current state absolute "treeness"? It may have no leaves in the winter, but does that make it any less of a tree? Looks different in winter, spring, summer or fall. Can you say any one of those states is what that tree actually is? There are no absolutes.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Yesterday this that I see through was eating a piece of lemon pie

Seeing him eat

Seeing him seeing his piece of pie

So simple

Yet so ordinarily hidden

Awareness beyond the physical sense of it

Presence beyond the body seen

Knowing beyond knowledge

So Simple, yes

Beautifully Being

Soft, Gentle

No effort to Be what already Is!

No demands for what is already Fulfilled!

This, everywhere and always; here and now.

Yet as the mind seeks only something to rationalize, it will not function for that which is beyond all rationalization. Instead, it could be a rut, a nonsensical, endless grasping of the formless.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

An absolute, unfalsifiable and irreducible realty does not exist. Never has, never will. It's merely concept, an attempt make reality fit what we think it should be. Nobody has ever found any absolute truth, it just can't happen.

Under what literal context does your view exist? The same as mine. If it is Real, it is Absolute. So how can it never exist, and in relation to what?

The Absolute needs no happenings, it is not a happening or something to find. That all falls under perception. Rather, it is the Ultimate Context, which already Is, that cannot be perceived.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

What is a tree, for example? Or a particular tree, the one in your yard. Is it's current state absolute "treeness"? It may have no leaves in the winter, but does that make it any less of a tree? Looks different in winter, spring, summer or fall. Can you say any one of those states is what that tree actually is? There are no absolutes.

I understand, but you will not know the Absolute by trying to perceive it. A "tree" results from a perception and special name for something that exists in a special, definable form. Because of this, a "tree" will not have an Absolute or Timeless Reality, but rather a transitory, perceptual one. Similarly, we cannot argue that the Law of Conservation of Energy is not true, while referring to forms of energy that only temporarily exist in one form.

We can only say that everything in nature Is what it Is, and that is Absolute, because it is a Self-existent Reality. The substrate of Subjectivity will forever be confirming this as an intrinsic fact of Existence.

Before there can be any deviation, division, time and definition of a thing, there must be a non-thing that is One, Absolute, Timeless and undefinable. How does anybody think there is time? Time must fall within the Context of the Timeless. Therefore, one could argue that time is an illusion when the Context is revealed, similar to the ego being transcended as an illusion within greater Awareness. Nobody can argue from a lower standpoint about a higher one, this is merely the consequence of not recognizing one's limitations. Likewise, perception cannot know Reality for what it is, only Reality can - by virtue of what it is.

So I'm assuming the 'illuminated reality' is a spiritual concept, as opposed to a physical concept? To answer your question, no I don't think our normal, human perception cannot be escaped. However, even after passing beyond it, one would only find themselves perceiving in a different way. Thus, 'perception' itself cannot be escaped without forfeiting our consciousness, for consciousness by definition is a perception of sorts.

So if you have to shed all forms of perception entirely to reach the 'truth'... then that'd mean a pile of rocks is better than humanity.

I'd rather do more with my life than exist. Flawed reality or not, it's the only one we have; the only one we can take responsibility for.

And please, please answer my question: what is the purpose of this whole idea? What do you want us to learn from it? To do after we read it? To feel? Or is this just pointless mindsturbation?

Originally Posted by bcomp

So I'm assuming the 'illuminated reality' is a spiritual concept, as opposed to a physical concept?

It is a spiritual concept, because it is about Reality as a totality and the Knowledge of Self (or Spirit).

Originally Posted by bcomp

To answer your question, no I don't think our normal, human perception cannot be escaped. However, even after passing beyond it, one would only find themselves perceiving in a different way.

Then it is not truly transcendence. You would have escaped a current positionality or perception, but not the entire operation itself. Unfortunately, one cannot perceive what is beyond the very act of doing so.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Thus, 'perception' itself cannot be escaped without forfeiting our consciousness, for consciousness by definition is a perception of sorts.

That really depends on the level of consciousness, at which at higher level are beyond perception. The nature of consciousness determines the nature of perception, and so as it increases, so does spiritual awareness.

Originally Posted by bcomp

So if you have to shed all forms of perception entirely to reach the 'truth'... then that'd mean a pile of rocks is better than humanity.

A pile of rocks are inert. Humans are alive and conscious. As they are what they are, neither are better or worse. Don't be concerned about worth, for that too is a perception.

Originally Posted by bcomp

And please, please answer my question: what is the purpose of this whole idea? What do you want us to learn from it? To do after we read it? To feel? Or is this just pointless mindsturbation?

The purpose: To describe how Reality Is not Truly as it seems; not perception. To learn this, to benefit, contemplate the meaning, and serve discussion.

Originally Posted by really

Then it is not truly transcendence. You would have escaped a current positionality or perception, but not the entire operation itself. Unfortunately, one cannot perceive what is beyond the very act of doing so.

So if we cannot percieve or rationalize or understand or apply this transcendence to the world of this conversation, then why try? To ponder the 'meaning' of it, you say? Meaning, my good man, is a by-product of perception. In pondering the 'meaning' of this ultimate 'true reality,' you only draw yourself further from it.

And I'm afraid you're inappropriately separating perception and consciousness. Not like I enjoy busting the dictionary, but it'll clarify.

Originally Posted by Webster's Dictionary

Consciousness

1. a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself.

So when you're conscious you're aware and when you're aware you're...

Originally Posted by Webster's Dictionary

Aware

2: having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge.

When you're conscious, you're perceiving. According to our understanding of consciousness, if you transcend perception, you forfeit your consciousness.

Unless of course you believe in the existence of a spirit. In which case, shouldn't this be in the 'Spirituality' board?

Originally Posted by bcomp

So if we cannot percieve or rationalize or understand or apply this transcendence to the world of this conversation, then why try?

Non-dualistically, what is transcendent to perception and awareness is already immanent within oneself at this very moment. A conversation such as this one can still be insightful and useful with a deep intuition, and it is alluding to another level of human "experience".

Originally Posted by bcomp

To ponder the 'meaning' of it, you say? Meaning, my good man, is a by-product of perception. In pondering the 'meaning' of this ultimate 'true reality,' you only draw yourself further from it.

Well I don't mean in the Absolute sense, because the Absolute would be, as you say, meaningless (or rather, beyond meaning). To ponder the meaning of what I have said would include relating it to your current view and hopefully help shine some positive thought into this area of life.

Contemplation is very beneficial as it can humbly weaken the effect of perception and thoughts, thusly allowing greater power to transcend them, increasing one's capacity for happiness and love.

Originally Posted by bcomp

And I'm afraid you're inappropriately separating perception and consciousness. Not like I enjoy busting the dictionary, but it'll clarify.

So when you're conscious you're aware and when you're aware you're...

When you're conscious, you're perceiving. According to our understanding of consciousness, if you transcend perception, you forfeit your consciousness.

I understand what you mean, but you have to stick with my actual definitions, because they are the context in which I am speaking of them. It can be confusing because there are a lot of other definitions. Same with consciousness - which I would point out, I define it as commonly in the "holographic" (quantum) and spiritual understanding; which is related to a "field" of intelligence and the power to manifest life. Within it are patterns which dominate behavior and what is known as "karma", but like I said, this is a whole other topic. It is not the most important element of this thread.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Unless of course you believe in the existence of a spirit. In which case, shouldn't this be in the 'Spirituality' board?

For the sake of Philosophy, I call the Spirit the Self. Again, they're indifferent, but I refer to the Being of the Self as in this case..

Originally Posted by really

Interesting thoughts. I'll show this to my friend. He's always super-relativist idealist and can a bit naive when I discuss about things relative to this at times. I always didn't like how he goes "Nothing is absolute." how arrogant of him when he is One. axasndnasdnwalfawenfawelfe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!