Is anything really objective?

[Birch]

Oh, yes, the car is real. But they do not grow naturally. What was created naturally has been used (manipulated) to build it. Same with the barbecued steak - cattle don't porduce them naturally.

 

Objective - the object - it ends at its outer limits. (A living thing would be different because of the energy it radiates.)

 

The mind has no limits. It can go anywhere it wants to. To the edge of the universe and beyond. Ha! That would exclude the mind from being an object, wouldn't it? The object is the brain. There! I found the difference between brain and mind. Brain is object and mind is subject.

 

Don't you do the Buddhist stuff on me and try to get me to put my finger on my "me". Hehehe. "Me" is a collection of stuff that makes "me" me. Ain't no single object "me". But there is an object "Marblehead" and that physical object has its limits (except for the mind as I mentioned above).

 

"(A living thing would be different because of the energy it radiates.)"

 

Well the car takes energy from the living things to get made and pollutes them in the process. So does the 'car' end at the shell body or does it keep on going? Does the 'car' stop at the autoworkers' skills that became useless after the car manufacture got moved? Does the 'car' end at the parking lots and motortowns that separate neighbours and determine who lives on the 'wrong' side of town?

 

I think the places one chooses to separate 'things' into 'things' at are very important. Knowing the correct relationship between things, also very important IMO/IME.

[Marblehead]

"other animals" I think is the point. What 'other animals' kill each other ("same animal") for survival? In what conditions? Are there conditions in which they don't, or didn't before and now they do?

 

You know that if you want a mean dog, just beat the puppy up.

 

One species killing members of its own species is very rare except in the human animal. Perhaps we think too much.

[Stigweard]

What is really real?

 

I believe we are hopelessly inept to answer that effectively.

 

Out of the glorious multi-spectrum of Universal emanations we are biologically only able to perceive a pitifully small band-width; our eyes can only see so much colour, our ears can only hear so much sound etc.

 

Then this atrophied sensory data is filtered, censured, and distorted through our fixed beliefs of what is and is not real. We then add a final insult to reality by abstracting what we believe to be true into the matrix of words and description.

 

How can this final product we are sharing with each other, this coughed up fur-ball of written beliefs, possibly even approximate what is real?

 

What is real? Perhaps only in the pureness of singular awareness can this be known.

 

[Marblehead]

Well you don't have to talk about religion with me Mr MH. You know by now where I stand on many of them :-)

 

Yep. Hehehe. (Actually I'm not too far off from your understandings, I just don't talk about it much anymore.)

[Marblehead]

And you can't isolate Marblehead from his environment, it seems like you might be able to because Marblehead is mobile and is surrounded by a bag of skin and some cool antennae, but it's an illusion. Cut off from it's environment, Marblehead would quickly vanish and would never has existed in the first place.

 

Well, that's true of any living organism. But that is also irrelevant. If "I" didn't exist in the first place we wouldn't be having this conversation. Of course "I" need air to breathe, liquid to drink (takes a sip of coffee) and food to eat. But that doesn't mean I don't exist. And I mean objectively. Subjectively I am many things to many different people. I can't even imagine some of the things I am to my ex-wifes!

 

But I am still the whole package. One can't have only selected parts of me - it's all or nothing.

 

Hehehe. So it's all an illusion? Then you go on to say that if I were cut off from my environment I would quickly vanish. Now get it straight. Is I am or is I ain't?

[Marblehead]

I was just responding to this. I'm not sure why you are making a distinction between natural and unnatural when it comes to real. It's sort of related to why we try and make distinctions between our everyday human behavior and some idealistic vision of what we think natural behavior should be. Why do we insist on thinking it should be differnt than what is? I find that puzzling.

 

Ah!, Steve's questioning my original question and the reason for it.

 

The question was (and still is): Is anything really objective? That is to ask, Is the universe totally subjective? It doesn't exist if there is not an observer?

 

You see, when folks get caught up in talking about spirituality they drift off into never-never land and pretend that everything is a dream - "Their Dream". They talk about oneness but it is only "Their" oneness and it is "They" who is having the experience and everyone and everything else is only a part of "Thier" dream.

 

Well, I suggest that this is bull shit. The universe did very well before they were born and it will do just fine after they die. Sadly, they are not the center of the universe nor does their imagination create you and me.

 

Outside of man's mind there is a real "objective" universe that existed for over 14 billion years without man needing to imagine it existed only in his mind.

 

Subjectivity is a result of our dualistically thinking brain. It is we who attach insignificant meaning to objectivity. What is, is. Period. We and all things, living and not, are products of the processes of Nature.

 

Now, I really wasn't trying to make distinctions between what is real naturally and what is real as a result of manufacture. That's just the way the dictionary defined the word.

 

Yes, the coffee I have been drinking is real. I made a small pot earlier. Tastes good too.

[Marblehead]

I think the places one chooses to separate 'things' into 'things' at are very important. Knowing the correct relationship between things, also very important IMO/IME.

 

Yes, you are correct, IMO. It is important as to how much importance we put on 'things'. And how many things do we need to accumulate before we have 'enough'? And yes, do we value our 'things' more than we value the people in our life? Hehehe. That will test how you view subjective/objective.

[Apech]

I don't agree but I might one day.

 

But for now I ain't gonna' let you destroy my objective reality. So there!

 

Eh? What makes you think I was trying to destroy your objective reality? I think we may be at cross purposes ... probably because of my crap explanations ...

[Marblehead]

What is really real?

 

I believe we are hopelessly inept to answer that effectively.

 

Out of the glorious multi-spectrum of Universal emanations we are biologically only able to perceive a pitifully small band-width; our eyes can only see so much colour, our ears can only hear so much sound etc.

 

Then this atrophied sensory data is filtered, censured, and distorted through our fixed beliefs of what is and is not real. We then add a final insult to reality by abstracting what we believe to be true into the matrix of words and description.

 

How can this final product we are sharing with each other, this coughed up fur-ball of written beliefs, possibly even approximate what is real?

 

What is real? Perhaps only in the pureness of singular awareness can this be known.

 

 

Fair statements and questions. You will, of course, let me know if you happen upon the real answer to your questions, right?

 

Ah, the things we can't hear, see, feel, taste or smell. Surely millions. But do they really matter in our pitifully short lifespan? I think not. Therefore I don't concern myself with them. Can I see those little neutrinos having sex? Nope. I don't concern myself with them. Other people get off from watching them with their pretty little instruments. That's okay.

 

This is kinda' like my view of problems in my life. There are only two categories: Those I can do something about and those I can do nothing about. I deal with those I can do something about and forget about those I can do nothing about. (Well, I do like to talk about them sometimes. I do that here often.)

[Marblehead]

Eh? What makes you think I was trying to destroy your objective reality? I think we may be at cross purposes ... probably because of my crap explanations ...

 

Hehehe. It might be me too. I am a slow learner sometimes. Afterall it took me three marriages to finally learn that I should not get married.

 

Seems that there is some interest in this thread so there is still a chance we will gain an understanding. The game is never over, we just change playing fields.

[Birch]

What is really real?

 

I believe we are hopelessly inept to answer that effectively.

 

Out of the glorious multi-spectrum of Universal emanations we are biologically only able to perceive a pitifully small band-width; our eyes can only see so much colour, our ears can only hear so much sound etc.

 

Then this atrophied sensory data is filtered, censured, and distorted through our fixed beliefs of what is and is not real. We then add a final insult to reality by abstracting what we believe to be true into the matrix of words and description.

 

How can this final product we are sharing with each other, this coughed up fur-ball of written beliefs, possibly even approximate what is real?

 

What is real? Perhaps only in the pureness of singular awareness can this be known.

 

 

Well, what you said sounds about right :-)

Except the thing about fur balls. Is that an anti-cat stance ?

My opinion is if we listen to and observe other things that can biologically perceive what we can't we might get further with our understanding of the whole. I don't think you can do that in laboratories, nor are we going to be able to do it by berating ourselves once we've begun to figure some of it out. Hopefully we can do it and by that point we won't have killed everything else. But we're not far off.

[Apech]

Hehehe. It might be me too. I am a slow learner sometimes. Afterall it took me three marriages to finally learn that I should not get married.

 

Seems that there is some interest in this thread so there is still a chance we will gain an understanding. The game is never over, we just change playing fields.

 

I kind of agree with what you said to Stig ... just because the universe is so much vaster and complicated than we can perceive doesn't make what we do perceive any less real. It's refreshing and good to think about everything being real instead of all the 'it's an illusion, man' stuff. We deal with what we have to deal with. I guess sometimes when we get intimations of the infinite beyond ... 'we just step back and bow our heads in humility' (who said that?)

 

I still think its interesting to consider what it is that convinces us that things are real. For instance rather like Chuang Tzu's butterfly dream ... if we dream about a chair it seems completely real in the dream (or can do) but we also know a real chair when we see one. What's the difference? Did Chuang Tzu ever sort out whether he was a man dreaming of being a butterfly or visa versa ... I suspect he did really.

 

So what is it about your chair that makes it not a dream chair?

 

(You must answer the question using both sides of the paper and in less than 20,000 words. If you need a comfort break raise your hand and an adjudicator will guide you to the nearest facility. You may not use a calculator. Marks will be deducted for insane laughter or tears.)

[Marblehead]

I still think its interesting to consider what it is that convinces us that things are real. For instance rather like Chuang Tzu's butterfly dream ... if we dream about a chair it seems completely real in the dream (or can do) but we also know a real chair when we see one. What's the difference? Did Chuang Tzu ever sort out whether he was a man dreaming of being a butterfly or visa versa ... I suspect he did really.

 

So what is it about your chair that makes it not a dream chair?

 

(You must answer the question using both sides of the paper and in less than 20,000 words. If you need a comfort break raise your hand and an adjudicator will guide you to the nearest facility. You may not use a calculator. Marks will be deducted for insane laughter or tears.)

 

Yes, Chuang Tzu's butterfly dream. He never speaks to it again. But then there is the story of his walk in the park where he forgot himself. I'll point the story out to you if you don't know which one I am talking about.

 

The thing with my dreams is that when I wake up I realize that I was dreaming. Every time - never fails regardless of how 'real' the dream seemed to be. I have never yet woke up from being awake. Therein lies the difference. Perhpas if I was a drug user or alcoholic I would have a different understanding.

 

You see, in dreams I have actually been someone else. Now that is strange. I have also been an observer observing myself. During my waking hours that never happens unless it is a little intentional play game. But I still know that it is "I" who is doing it.

 

My coffee cup never fails to hold the coffee I put into it. Imagine yourself a cup. Take that imaginary cup to the water faucet and draw water into it. It doesn't work, does it? The water splashes into the sink. That will happen every time. But take a 'real' cup to the same faucet and the cup will hold the water every time as long as you don not over-fill it.

 

When I dream, which isn't that often, the dreams are never the same. Different and strange things happen. During my waking hours everything not living remains nearly the same, they actually seem to be the same over short periods of time. Consistency and reliability are keys to my physical reality. Now, when I day-dream, that's different. I am altering my objectivity with my subjectivity.

 

(Did I stay within the response criteria? Hehehe.)

[Birch]

I wake up in the middle of mine but I don't actually wake up if you see what I mean. That's weird and not always entirely pleasant.

Like last night I dreamt I visited this kind of farmhouse where the family who lived there had huge numbers of pregnant animals. Cats, dogs, fish, reptiles, you name it. Anyway, I was politely sitting there (babysitting) getting bombarded by kittens thinking 'man this is awful' and then I realised I was dreaming and I sort of went 'phew' realising it wasn't real but I was still in the dream. It just made it less annoying.

 

Then I switched to another one and I found myself in a store trying on some very expensive orange silk-lined trousers. But I didn't like the hat that went with them and they were far too expensive, so I woke up, but didn't wake up.

 

My take is that this is happening because I have been mucking around with my sense of subjectivity/objectivity through practices. I don't think it says what's 'real' although it might point to the idea that I decide what's real as soon as I decide what's not. But that's just an idea. As was the butterfly dream.

[steve]

Now get it straight. Is I am or is I ain't?

Yes

[Apech]

 

....

 

My coffee cup never fails to hold the coffee I put into it. Imagine yourself a cup. Take that imaginary cup to the water faucet and draw water into it. It doesn't work, does it? The water splashes into the sink. That will happen every time. But take a 'real' cup to the same faucet and the cup will hold the water every time as long as you don not over-fill it.

 

...

 

 

Yes, I think the test of reality is the compliance with natural laws. The water from the faucet always goes down - gravity - and so on. So its a kind of predictability in the natural world which confirms reality. The chair doesn't turn into a rabbit ... if it did we would assume that we were dreaming (or too much Scotch maybe?). Physics tells us these laws break down for the very small or very large ... but I don't want to go there ... but its important to remember that there are different perspectives.

 

These natural laws come from somewhere .. we all share them, we didn't make them up ... we might not understand them properly but they still operate. Where they come from is the Tao and the Tao follows its own nature in 'creating' them. Gravity is real, time is real, space is real. But only the Tao is complete. So gravity follows Tao but Tao does not follow gravity. Or you could say Gravity is a specific case of Tao function. The tree is Tao but the Tao is not the tree. This is where I was going.

[Marblehead]

These natural laws come from somewhere .. we all share them, we didn't make them up ... we might not understand them properly but they still operate. Where they come from is the Tao and the Tao follows its own nature in 'creating' them. Gravity is real, time is real, space is real. But only the Tao is complete. So gravity follows Tao but Tao does not follow gravity. Or you could say Gravity is a specific case of Tao function. The tree is Tao but the Tao is not the tree. This is where I was going.

 

Perfect!

 

How many times have I said here on this board that we should observe the processes of Nature. How many times have I spoke of Tzujan? Enough, I am sure but then I am sure I will continue to speak of these two concepts.

 

And true, man did not make up these concepts. Marblehead did not make up these concepts. They have existed from the beginningless beginning (that is, the beginning of this cycle).

 

Yes, I think it can be said that the Laws of Nature are within Tao. Tao follows Tzujan? I'm still working with this but I tend to lean in agreement with it.

 

But the processes exist. Physical reality exists - doesn't matter if one looks at the entire picture or if one looks at only the individual pieces.

 

Yeah, sometimes it appears that there is total chaos. The appearing and disappearing, the creation and destruction, birth and death, and all the other opposites.

 

 

I watched TV last night after shutting down the computer to get tired enough to go to bed and sleep (normal process for me) and watched "Through The Wormhole" program "Is There Life After Death". Included in it was a really great discussion of "consciousness". The program was well worth watching.

[Marblehead]

I wake up in the middle of mine but I don't actually wake up if you see what I mean. That's weird and not always entirely pleasant.

Like last night I dreamt I visited this kind of farmhouse where the family who lived there had huge numbers of pregnant animals. Cats, dogs, fish, reptiles, you name it. Anyway, I was politely sitting there (babysitting) getting bombarded by kittens thinking 'man this is awful' and then I realised I was dreaming and I sort of went 'phew' realising it wasn't real but I was still in the dream. It just made it less annoying.

 

Then I switched to another one and I found myself in a store trying on some very expensive orange silk-lined trousers. But I didn't like the hat that went with them and they were far too expensive, so I woke up, but didn't wake up.

 

My take is that this is happening because I have been mucking around with my sense of subjectivity/objectivity through practices. I don't think it says what's 'real' although it might point to the idea that I decide what's real as soon as I decide what's not. But that's just an idea. As was the butterfly dream.

 

Yes, I know what you are talking about. I have had those kinds of dreams as well. Seems like our subconscious (dreams) and our consciousness are both in control at the same time for a short period of time (between the dreams).

 

I actually had a vivid dreams last night. Hehehe. A nice dream, a bunch of small animals all playing very well together - none eating each other.

 

And yes, what you spoke to I think is what was behind the butterfly dream.

[Marblehead]

Yes

 

Now that's what I call total clarity. Hehehe.

[Stigweard]

Fair statements and questions. You will, of course, let me know if you happen upon the real answer to your questions, right?

 

Ah, the things we can't hear, see, feel, taste or smell. Surely millions. But do they really matter in our pitifully short lifespan? I think not. Therefore I don't concern myself with them. Can I see those little neutrinos having sex? Nope. I don't concern myself with them. Other people get off from watching them with their pretty little instruments. That's okay.

 

This is kinda' like my view of problems in my life. There are only two categories: Those I can do something about and those I can do nothing about. I deal with those I can do something about and forget about those I can do nothing about. (Well, I do like to talk about them sometimes. I do that here often.)

Let you know? LOL expect a postcard ... hehehe!!

 

There's a further implication to what I posted here:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/19930-is-anything-really-objective/page__view__findpost__p__283306

 

The way I see it, what we hold as reality is only a case of Chinese whispers, meaning that when we are conceptually describing reality we are several steps removed from reality.

 

Phenomena >>> perception >>> conceptual filtering/censuring >>> conceptual description

 

The conceptual description stage is just a paltry echo or a memory of the phenomena hence past. Thus for the most part we are only remembering reality not living it.

 

For most people the only time they are truly brought into synch with reality is during some extreme event ... pain, pleasure, extreme emotion.

 

In my opinion, which probably counts for very little, the ultimāre of Daoism is about training one's awareness to catch up reality and exist purely in the emerging phenomena stage, the continuous unfolding now of Dao.

 

[steve]

 

In my opinion, which probably counts for very little, the ultimāre of Daoism is about training one's awareness to catch up reality and exist purely in the emerging phenomena stage, the continuous unfolding now of Dao.

 

I don't know about Marbles, but I value your opinion!

Another way to interpret what you just said (the same way really?) is that Daoism, like all other religious/spiritual traditions, is simply about trying to figure out what reality is and how to be a genuine human being. Which takes us back to topic - are we objects or subjects?

And it may be interesting to discuss but I think that for each of us the sum total of our life experience determines which we feel ourselves to be, there will be no convincing, only description.

[konchog uma]

I have often wondered if part of the mystery is that the objective reality is really just an aggregate of subjective realities.

 

Partly, I wonder this because we as humans can affect the world-as-it-is-to-others with our thoughts and intentions, subjective and selfish as they may be. So the subjective in this way literally becomes the objective world. Where does one draw the line from this point of view? To me it is blurry and nebulous.

 

Partly, I wonder this because of a desire to reconcile the paradox and to realize some kind of "truth" like "subjective is objective, and objective subjective" or some such koan-like verbage that propels the mind to a non-dual vantage point, instead of setting up diametric opposites.

 

Marblehead, I hear you clearly about wanting to address things as they are and not get lost in dreamland, and I acknowledge that from a certain point of view, there is a black and white difference between subjective and objective that is important to understand, from a raw survival standpoint to a removed, philosophically concerned standpoint. Indeed! I don't mean to put forth the idea that "truth is oneness" just because that follows the tenets of any particular philosophical model.

 

I personally think that everything that exists vibrates and has a spirit, so this question probably isn't particularly human. I think the deities and the dust mites all affect the 'objective' world with their vibrations. Presupposing that all forms have spirit, if not "a spirit", and that all vibration changes the objective reality (ie that which we can agree on subjectively), it seems impossible to imagine objective reality as seperate from the myriad subjective realities. Even (to further presuppose) a creator-deity would, by definition, have a subjective perspective. I think it would just both be wiser, and effect a lot more change in the world-as-it-was-to-others, so maybe it would seem "more objective" ??? I can't say obviously.

 

I truly wonder if the mind just wants to cling to "objectivity" in an attempt to believe that something unchanging exists, something it can believe in subjectively, and align with in order to "be right".

[Marblehead]

The way I see it, what we hold as reality is only a case of Chinese whispers, meaning that when we are conceptually describing reality we are several steps removed from reality.

 

Phenomena >>> perception >>> conceptual filtering/censuring >>> conceptual description

 

The conceptual description stage is just a paltry echo or a memory of the phenomena hence past. Thus for the most part we are only remembering reality not living it.

 

For most people the only time they are truly brought into synch with reality is during some extreme event ... pain, pleasure, extreme emotion.

 

In my opinion, which probably counts for very little, the ultimāre of Daoism is about training one's awareness to catch up reality and exist purely in the emerging phenomena stage, the continuous unfolding now of Dao.

 

 

Well, gee, what can I say? I can't talk about other people in this thread as I ahve no idea what goes on in their mind (brain).

 

But I agree with your last statement. To live in the now. Acknowledge the chair as a chair and sit your ass down.

[Marblehead]

I don't know about Marbles, but I value your opinion!

Another way to interpret what you just said (the same way really?) is that Daoism, like all other religious/spiritual traditions, is simply about trying to figure out what reality is and how to be a genuine human being. Which takes us back to topic - are we objects or subjects?

And it may be interesting to discuss but I think that for each of us the sum total of our life experience determines which we feel ourselves to be, there will be no convincing, only description.

 

Well, I made the only reply I could make to Stig's post. Hehehe.

 

Point: I am a subject of no one. I am the object.

 

Yeah, when you guys and gals get into the religious/spiritual aspect of humanity things get really flakey for me. I need to stay with concepts I can talk about.

 

You see, the way I understand it is that people turn to religion, mysticism and spirituality because they cannot find enough meaning in the physical reality. I don't have that problem (yes, I consider it a problem) so therefore I rarely speak to these concepts.

[Marblehead]

I have often wondered if part of the mystery is that the objective reality is really just an aggregate of subjective realities.

 

Excellent post and thanks for joining the discussion.

 

I have no desire here to negate the importance of the subjectivity. I am only trying to express the importance of the objectivity.

 

Your use of the word 'spirit' the way you did I normally use the word "Chi". That keeps me away from having to speak of spirituality and then religions.