Thread: All Things are Imaginary

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Summary: the imaginary and real exist in the same way to all non-observers and exist separately to observers, who themselves are indistinguishable from the imaginary to those who are not observing them.

Pardon me if that's an incorrect interpretation, but it seems like the best summary of your ideas, Tausaur. As I've interpreted it, it makes sense from a purely perceptual perspective. The big question is whether perception can be trusted to provide a description of objects whose real existence is continuous or whether perception creates the illusion of continuous, real existence in a universe constructed entirely from concepts.

To me, the answer is clearly the former, as the latter would pose some difficult questions, such as: Why does everyone share the same reality? Why are there universal concepts and concepts that are never observed? How many observers are out there and how are they different from everything else in the universe?

I think as individuals, we make the assumption that all others share the same reality as we do. This is not neccessarily the case and in many situations can be shown to be definitely false. Through communication, we are able to form a model of someone else's reality, but this model is always based on our own perceptions and beliefs, in many ways purposely fitting the information to what we already understand. As an individual it is impossible to truly know another's reality, and instead we can only observe the symbols that they use to represent their reality and attempt to fit them to our own in order to feel a sense of common experience.

I'm not sure what you mean by concepts that are never observed, because I don't know how such a thing could exist or how you could have knowledge of something without first observing it.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Summary: the imaginary and real exist in the same way to all non-observers and exist separately to observers, who themselves are indistinguishable from the imaginary to those who are not observing them.

I'm having difficulty making sense of what you're saying here. What is a "non-observer" and how would anything exist "to" it in any way? You seem to be saying things have a fixed existence and even a perspective independent of sense-based consciousness. What I'm saying is that what we commonly class as "real" is a subset of the imaginary. Objects and concepts we take for being real are products of the mind, and products of the mind can manifest physically and exist independent of any single mind. Classing things as real or imaginary gives you little information about their qualities or usefulness, and overemphasizing the material is a species of delusion.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Pardon me if that's an incorrect interpretation, but it seems like the best summary of your ideas, Tausaur. As I've interpreted it, it makes sense from a purely perceptual perspective. The big question is whether perception can be trusted to provide a description of objects whose real existence is continuous or whether perception creates the illusion of continuous, real existence in a universe constructed entirely from concepts.

I would say your two formulations are nearly equivalent because both persist in seeing the universe as a collection of things, whether concepts or "continuous" objects. Such a universe only exists in reference to sense-based consciousness. To try to construct a true statement from your terms, I might say, "Perception continuously conceives a universe of objects."

Originally Posted by R.D.735

To me, the answer is clearly the former, as the latter would pose some difficult questions, such as: Why does everyone share the same reality? Why are there universal concepts and concepts that are never observed?

Ants occupy the same anthill because they built it there; it is not present independent of their activity.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

How many observers are out there and how are they different from everything else in the universe?

I would say consciousness is a natural, reflexive activity of the universe, entirely in keeping with what's going on here.

True. All true. Reality to the individual includes abstract ideas and intangible thoughts. I agree with you there.

There's another reality, though. That reality encompasses all that is tangible. It will not include untransmitted thought until we have a means of translating thought to others (via machine, of course). I made a post about this a while ago, but lost it...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hmmmm....

That is interesting stuff. I should probably tell you now that I used to be way into Buddhism and general Eastern philosophy, and I was pretty into the sort of idea you are talking about. I have just been having fun asking questions about the idea and trying to understand it even better. You seem to have a really good understanding of it, and my guess is that you have probably experienced expanded consciousness. What you are talking about reminds me of a reported saying of the Hindu god Siva. "I do not exist or not exist." I heard that in a documentary about fifteen years ago, and it has stuck with me ever since.

I recently came across the one supposed law of logic that I think is not universal, and I talked about it in two threads here recently. The law of the excluded middle basically says that either something is the case or it is not the case. The Siva principle would be an exception to it if the principle is true, and I think so is the statement, "This statement is false." That statement is neither false nor not false. It's truth does not exist, yet it does not not exist.

Those are koans of sorts. They illustrate that logic held rigidly obscures.

re: expanded consciousness, I would say I experience what the Buddha called "knowledge and vision," but without following through to full liberation, one still falls into suffering. If the mind were a door on a spring, I hold it open against the tension of the spring, letting in air and light, but I have not even stirred to remove the spring.

I just came across this guy on youtube saying approximately the same thing I was saying here: