Thread: Consensus Reality

Originally Posted by The Cusp

There is no such thing as absolute truth. That said, every I do think every different belief, viewpoint, conceptualization, are all perfectly valid. Valid, but not exclusive. Add up the sum total of every different reality and you end up with what I can only assume is the duality wave function, which I find easier to think of as an archetype.

There is no doubt an Absolute Truth, and that does not negate the fact that every different belief, viewpoint, conceptualization, are all perfectly valid unto themselves. Why is it you think they cannot co-exist?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Oh I agree that there is reality, I just don't agree that it is absolute; or perhaps a better way to put it is since any such absolute reality is necessarily inconceivable, we cannot really comment on such an absolute reality at all.

Do you mean by not being able to conceive the Absolute, that it cannot be known? On another note, if we cannot comment on it, doesn't that mean it most definitely exists?

I mean that the only interaction with the world that we have is a subjective one. I don't believe it is possible to even really understand an objective reality from a purely subjective perspective. I guess we can 'conceive' of an absolute reality since we are now talking about that concept, but our conception of it is definitely wrong. Since we can't even know how close our conception is to the True Nature of Reality, it is about the same as not having any conception at all.

Exactly! Because reality is not a concept! Reality is Reality!
Absolute Reality cannot be known because it would take a mind bigger than reality to know it. And nothing can be bigger than Reality. That is why we have consensus reality.
Hmmmm...
All relative 'realities' and consensus 'realities' and viewpoints are valid to some degree and also equally invalid to some degree. They all are false because they all limit Absolute Reality but they are all valid because they are included by Absolute reality. There is no contradiction, yet they are never the whole story. The Tao that can be told is not the true eternal Tao.
It is almost as if Absolute Reality is pure potential for all imaginable relative 'realities'. It is the canvas that we paint our subjective perceptions on. Yet we cannot speak of the canvas because it is blank, yet can contain any possible rendition of reality, however seemingly false. It is like a mirror that will reflect anything, and we cannot conceive of a mirror without its reflections. We can only conceive and speak of the relative realities that we find reflected in the mirror of Absolute reality. We confuse the reflections for the mirror.
OK Dannon, shut up now!

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Exactly! Because reality is not a concept! Reality is Reality!
Absolute Reality cannot be known because it would take a mind bigger than reality to know it. And nothing can be bigger than Reality. That is why we have consensus reality.
Hmmmm...
All relative 'realities' and consensus 'realities' and viewpoints are valid to some degree and also equally invalid to some degree. They all are false because they all limit Absolute Reality but they are all valid because they are included by Absolute reality. There is no contradiction, yet they are never the whole story. The Tao that can be told is not the true eternal Tao.
It is almost as if Absolute Reality is pure potential for all imaginable relative 'realities'. It is the canvas that we paint our subjective perceptions on. Yet we cannot speak of the canvas because it is blank, yet can contain any possible rendition of reality, however seemingly false. It is like a mirror that will reflect anything, and we cannot conceive of a mirror without its reflections. We can only conceive and speak of the relative realities that we find reflected in the mirror of Absolute reality. We confuse the reflections for the mirror.
OK Dannon, shut up now!

I think the mirror analogy is better than the canvas one. A canvas is a distinct surface even if it is blank. A mirror is truly nothing without the consideration of the reflection. You can talk about the glass or the shiny metal, but those aren't really the mirror, since if its not reflecting anything its not a mirror, its just glass and metal.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I mean that the only interaction with the world that we have is a subjective one. I don't believe it is possible to even really understand an objective reality from a purely subjective perspective. I guess we can 'conceive' of an absolute reality since we are now talking about that concept, but our conception of it is definitely wrong. Since we can't even know how close our conception is to the True Nature of Reality, it is about the same as not having any conception at all.

I see what you're saying. The funny thing is though, that there is no possible reality that is independent of subjectivity. In other words, no "independent objective reality" exists. There is no way to know of anything if there is no subjective context.

I'm not saying we can't be objective or rational about things, but what I'm saying is that objective reality cannot be separated from pure subjectivity, in which case it is most possible that we can know of an Absolute Reality. The paradigm is though, that it cannot be known through the mind or via concepts. This means that, in order for it to exist, it must already exist beyond conceptualization.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Exactly! Because reality is not a concept! Reality is Reality!
Absolute Reality cannot be known because it would take a mind bigger than reality to know it. And nothing can be bigger than Reality. That is why we have consensus reality.
Hmmmm...
All relative 'realities' and consensus 'realities' and viewpoints are valid to some degree and also equally invalid to some degree. They all are false because they all limit Absolute Reality but they are all valid because they are included by Absolute reality. There is no contradiction, yet they are never the whole story. The Tao that can be told is not the true eternal Tao.
It is almost as if Absolute Reality is pure potential for all imaginable relative 'realities'. It is the canvas that we paint our subjective perceptions on. Yet we cannot speak of the canvas because it is blank, yet can contain any possible rendition of reality, however seemingly false. It is like a mirror that will reflect anything, and we cannot conceive of a mirror without its reflections. We can only conceive and speak of the relative realities that we find reflected in the mirror of Absolute reality. We confuse the reflections for the mirror.
OK Dannon, shut up now!

Hahaha, nice explanation. The thing in bold though is something that doesn't seem to support what you're saying. It is true that we cannot know the Absolute via the mind. However, the Absolute rests in a deeper paradigm of knowledge. Our consciousness is what it takes to know of reality, and because of this, consciousness must rest in the Absolute. Our consciousness is the mirror and the canvas. That there is an Absolute reality "out there" that "cannot be known" is a projection of perception, which in the long-run, contradicts itself.

Really, one of the main reasons why many of your posts rub me the wrong way is because you speak in assertions without offering any reason why the things you say are true, as if you posess some knowledge that is hidden to the rest of us. You are talking about The Absolute as if it is something that you have intimate knowledge of. If that is the case, then fine but it doesn't really mean much in terms of a discussion. If you are an enlightened being then you should be able to explain The Absolute in a way that I can understand and accept its existence. If you don't have hidden knowledge, then what exactly is it beyond your beliefs that convince you it exists and is knowable?

Reading back over this post, it sounds sort of hostile but that wasn't intended so please don't take it that way, since I can't think of any other way to word what I want to say.

Originally Posted by really

Hahaha, nice explanation. The thing in bold though is something that doesn't seem to support what you're saying. It is true that we cannot know the Absolute via the mind. However, the Absolute rests in a deeper paradigm of knowledge. Our consciousness is what it takes to know of reality, and because of this, consciousness must rest in the Absolute. Our consciousness is the mirror and the canvas. That there is an Absolute reality "out there" that "cannot be known" is a projection of perception, which in the long-run, contradicts itself.

HaHaHa! Very good, grasshopper! I agree wholeheartedly! Reality is one. It is not split into subjective and objective. The concepts of subjective and objective, howsoever fundamental to our consensus 'reality', are one in the Absolute Reality.

That is why Reality is both dependent and independent of subjectivity. (I need to catch up to myself here)

There is always this fundamental paradox that the Absolute Reality loves to throw at us as if it is mocking our attempt to understand it from whichever angle we come from. But really it is because, like you said REALLY, that it is impossible to understand Reality with the mind.

However, as you so eloquently pointed out, consciousness can know Reality. How? Why?

This is THE mystery.

To understand this we will first have to understand and agree on what we mean by 'consciousness' and 'mind'.

I love how all the shadewinks wink at the same time!

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Really, one of the main reasons why many of your posts rub me the wrong way is because you speak in assertions without offering any reason why the things you say are true, as if you posess some knowledge that is hidden to the rest of us. You are talking about The Absolute as if it is something that you have intimate knowledge of. If that is the case, then fine but it doesn't really mean much in terms of a discussion. If you are an enlightened being then you should be able to explain The Absolute in a way that I can understand and accept its existence. If you don't have hidden knowledge, then what exactly is it beyond your beliefs that convince you it exists and is knowable?

Reading back over this post, it sounds sort of hostile but that wasn't intended so please don't take it that way, since I can't think of any other way to word what I want to say.

I'm not offended, but for me to "offer" a reason to believe what I have said is to mistake that it is an intellectual conclusion. I.e. That I have arrived at the conclusions through reason and proof. I will say that I have no hidden knowledge that has some sort of implied specialness. What I'm saying is more like wisdom (it really is nothing original on my part) rather than trying to prove something. Despite this, it is a spiritual understanding that is rendered into intellectual terms. If you still don't see reason to believe something, perhaps it is more than that?

Also, I am no enlightened being and there is nothing I say that is really that grandiose that nobody else can understand it. It may seem that way because of the innate authority of the concepts in and of themselves. What convinces me of such a reality, is seeing this for myself. It's generally rock solid in terms of concepts, but more importantly that it is facilitating an experiential awareness.

Back to address the topic: The fundamental premise is that all reality is contextualized in subjectivity. Do you see no reason to believe this?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

However, as you so eloquently pointed out, consciousness can know Reality. How? Why?

This is THE mystery.

To understand this we will first have to understand and agree on what we mean by 'consciousness' and 'mind'.

I love how all the shadewinks wink at the same time!

lol.. I'm glad you get the gist of it.

Well traditionally (throughout history/spirituality) it seems that consciousness encompasses all reality in its manifest expression, as the essence of life or cosmic intelligence. The knower and the known are the one identity, which you may already be alluding to! Consciosuness is the substrate of energy out of which awareness arises. The mind is the mechanism that perceives duality; thinks in terms of concepts and ideas. I'm pretty sure No-mind is much like consciousness, if you've heard of that term.

Great thread!!

I don't have any great thoughts to throw out here, but just an analogy or two - well, and my own opinion on the matter:

I think there definitely is a concrete reality, and that for the most part we can all comprehend it and agree on it... but there are parts of it that are still hidden from us due to the limitations of our senses (even when amplified by scientific apparatus) and our understanding, and the fact that much of what we perceive is strongly influenced by our individual backgrounds/ beliefs etc.

Ok, now the analogies:

Does a dog perceive the world the same way we do? Their eyesight is pretty poor, but their sense of smell is incredibly sensitive, and in fact it's known canines have an area of the brain that builds a "smell picture" of their surroundings that's at least as powerful and complex as the "sight picture" our minds create from the data collected by our eyes. One major difference... vision is one-directional... you don't see all around your head, and you can't see things that are behind other things. Smell is different... a dog can smell things all the way around, and can tell exactly where the scents are coming from.

How would a dog's concept of your yard differ from your own? To you it's mostly a visual experience, though spiced up with smells (faint... the dog laughs at your puny olfactory abilities!), sounds and maybe the feel of the breeze on your skin etc. To the dog it's a vivid maze of trails made by all kinds of tiny animals you can't see... and he even is aware of the ones that passed by a while ago - not at all existing in your present image of the yard.

Thinking about this helps to understand to what extent perception affects our idea of 'reality'. I think for the most part there's a lot of overlap in human/ canine perception... he can smell the pile of dog crap you just stepped in, and you both know what it is... so the two worlds aren't totally different... it's mainly just a different perspective, which can reveal very different aspects of the world. There are things the dog is very strongly aware of that totally escape your notice, and vice verse.

Some people seem to believe that if a tree falls and there's nobody to hear it that it really doesn't make a sound. I guess it depends on what you mean by sound. I'd say it definitely vibrates the air at a frequency that a human ear would translate into the sound of a tree falling... whether or not there's an ear there! So you could get all nit-picky and say "But it isn't really a SOUND... it's just vibrations!". True, but that's all sound is, vibrations picked up by an eardrum and fed to the brain to be processed. So saying it doesn't make a sound to me is just semantics.

Originally Posted by really

Well traditionally (throughout history/spirituality) it seems that consciousness encompasses all reality in its manifest expression, as the essence of life or cosmic intelligence. The knower and the known are the one identity, which you may already be alluding to! Consciosuness is the substrate of energy out of which awareness arises. The mind is the mechanism that perceives duality; thinks in terms of concepts and ideas. I'm pretty sure No-mind is much like consciousness, if you've heard of that term.

Nice try! But not good enough for me! (They should have a zen master smiley that hits the other smiley with a stick) I know that this is the trickiest and slipperiest of subject to speak of. Or even think about or comprehend. Because it is of the No-mind! You have to have a No-mind to no-think about it in order to no-understand it and to be it.

You say that consciousness encompasses all reality, why? how? That would not convince a materialist who thinks that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain.
I am alluding that the knower and the known are one, but what does that mean? Does that make sense? Someone might think that you are just saying that because you heard it said without understanding it. What is your understanding of that statement?
And you say that consciousness is the substrate of energy out of which awareness arises. I have followed you up until this statement. What is the difference between consciousness and awareness? And, is consciousness an energy? If so does it have a wave frequency that can be measured? What the source of this energy? Can energy be a substrate?
This statement is good: "The mind is the mechanism that perceives duality; thinks in terms of concepts and ideas". But, go on... What is the mind made of? Where is it?

Only if we are able able to see past individual reality and consensus reality and all relative realities and know an absolute reality firsthand would we be able to understand consensus 'reality' objectively
And you say that it is possible with consciousness? How to realize the No-mind?

Dannon Oneironaut, I PM'd you. My post got a bit long and predictable for in here I think.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

There is no such thing as absolute truth.

Is that absolutely true?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is that absolutely true?

Absolutely not!

Well, the way I currently like to think about things is well... tricky. As to be expected. But I'll try my best to summarize things here.

For starters, I believe that there is some sort of absolute, objective reality, but currently believe that reality encompasses anything and everything imaginable, contradictory or not. So the whole waveform reality, as I suppose it's called.

I can never make up my mind on whether perception actually CREATES reality. I usually lean towards no, though. The way I see it, perception serves as a "filter" for reality, more than anything else. We only tend to see what we are looking for. It's our necessarily limited human perceptions that prevent us from seeing the whole of reality as it really is. And when you are filtering down from a waveform reality, it doesn't really matter that you can't create reality, because everything imaginable was there for the seeing, to begin with.

Even if objective reality does not contain all possibilities, our own subjective realities certainly do. And truthfully, that always seemed to matter so much more than objective reality, if you stop to think about it. Regardless of whether or not you have XYZ psychic ability, for example, if you truly believe you do, and live as such... well, that's your reality. Even if it isn't a consensus reality. And like Dannon said, we should let them be, if they aren't hurting anyone. Let them enjoy their own little realities.

My ideas are never set in stone, of course, and I'm always game for a fascinating discussion. So if anyone has questions or rebuttals, by all means.

The Hubble Telescope focused on one little area of space that could be seen between some stars in our galaxy and took a picture.



You cannot make out any individual stars in that picture. What you see are galaxies.

Humans don't mean shit.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Hubble Telescope focused on one little area of space that could be seen between some stars in our galaxy and took a picture.



You cannot make out any individual stars in that picture. What you see are galaxies.

Humans don't mean shit.

Actually, humans being the only entities to our knowledge that "mean" at all, nothing means shit without humans.

"Mean" also means "matter" or "have relevance or significance".

"I think she's cheating on me. There was a car in her driveway."

"A car in her driveway doesn't mean anything."

Also...

"There are some guys sitting in the very back at the U.N., but they don't mean anything."

And...

"There are humans on a spec of dust in the universe, but they don't mean shit."

Let's not split too many hairs over one of the words I used. I think you get the point I made in that post. Do you agree with it?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"Mean" also means "matter" or "have relevance or significance".

"I think she's cheating on me. There was a car in her driveway."

"A car in her driveway doesn't mean anything."

Also...

"There are some guys sitting in the very back at the U.N., but they don't mean anything."

And...

"There are humans on a spec of dust in the universe, but they don't mean shit."

Let's not split too many hairs over one of the words I used. I think you get the point I made in that post. Do you agree with it?

All the variations you present support my original point. One meaning "meaning" does not have is relative mass or volume. We can look out as far as we like from where we are and find more "stuff," but we're still looking out from where we are. All meaning we attribute to our surroundings, including that meaning that minimizes our own import, comes from us. Time, matter, and objects, do not exist independent of our observation--not to overstate our role, but simply to acknowledge that we, the conscious, as part of our universe, do exist. Consciousness is an aspect of the universe. It's a conscious universe. We can only quibble over degree.

If we became extinct tomorrow, that insane amount of stuff out there would still be there and carry on as if we never existed.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If we became extinct tomorrow, that insane amount of stuff out there would still be there and carry on as if we never existed.

Really? Time operates independent of observers how, now? You can extrapolate any quantity of time into a bottomless navel from the point of view of any given observer, but how exactly does one extrapolate from our existence a real system in which past and future exist without an observer to determine what is present?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Really? Time operates independent of observers how, now? You can extrapolate any quantity of time into a bottomless navel from the point of view of any given observer, but how exactly does one extrapolate from our existence a real system in which past and future exist without an observer to determine what is present?

We die out, and time goes on without us just like it did before we existed. Didn't we get here as a result of processes that happened in time? Minds are necessary for analysis of time, but not for its existence.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it,
does it make a sound?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If we became extinct tomorrow, that insane amount of stuff out there would still be there and carry on as if we never existed.

The universe "carrys on" regardless of what dies and what lives, and you cannot describe how it does this without humans, because essentially we are part of the universe in either case. The universe is not a separate thing and has no capacity to care for you; that is a just projection.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We die out, and time goes on without us just like it did before we existed. Didn't we get here as a result of processes that happened in time? Minds are necessary for analysis of time, but not for its existence.

Time has quite limited meaning outside the context of observation. Everything that has happened to you has definitely happened, but everything that has not happened has happened as well, just beyond your purview. It falls within your capacity to literally choose your universe, and various particulars of it, but also to engrave certain eventualities more surely upon your neighbors, who have whatever connection to you, be it a third cousin or an internet forum.

There are real, physical consequences to the meeting of observers, and the carving out of a shared reality they establish between them.