arewe just figments of our own imagination!

mkirkpatrick · **arewe just figments of our own imagination! -** 01-29-2006, 05:55 PM

I would like to propose that we have no objective or subjective reality,in the
absolute sense,that we only Seem to exist in the realitive state,outside of this
there seems to be just One-life,no plural,just singular,maybe we are all just
legends in our own minds,what do you think?

regards michael.

bruce the hoon · 01-29-2006, 09:00 PM

Hello Michael,
Do you mean the universe is all interconnected and alive? In this I agree and will be a kind of singular one life. As for us only being legends or figments of our own awareness, well that would mean that I would have imagined every event that has ever happened to bring about this conversation. I am all for a healthy self esteem but I do not want the resposibilty of being God. Rather I think we are all in it together and everything is a collective imaginative manifestation otherwise it would be like playing your self at chess. Extremely boring and predictable! We may have to take that on faith however, as, as you say, we have no objective or subjective proof of any awareness except our own.
Bruce.

coyote · **sadly, no.... -** 01-29-2006, 10:08 PM

if i were a figment of my own imagination then my mind would not have created income tax or any legal ramifications of punching some jerk in the face.

harmonygirl · **objective? -** 01-30-2006, 09:23 PM

Michael,
What's objective reality? I have always harboured the secret question of whether we exist only to act as hosts to viruses...I could certainly be myself dreaming of me, but I could also be a Hungarian princess dreaming of me. How do we know and will this knowledge affect us? I don't think it will. If I am a dream or if I am an "objective reality" I am still me. Unfortunately, I am having trouble with the notion of singularity (even collective singularity) because there is implied a notion of something to be singular from...

michellemfry · 01-31-2006, 02:35 AM

An objective reality is one like that proposed by Guille in Assume It To Be True....that Energy is Matter. A reality that is formed simply by being able to transform one part of the Universe into another by accepting that such a thing is possible and then doing it because you can. Currently, we insist that Energy is Energy and Matter is Matter and then we impose upon them separate definitions, separate words to identify themselves, separate places in the Universe. In an objective reality, one could transform Energy into Matter by simply accepting the situation and then doing it. One does this by working on the Universe instead of just existing in the Creation. To work on the Universe, you have to be competent, educated, and hired by the appropriate Administrator. Who might that be? The Universe.

He is right there in front of your very eyes. Can't you see the Universe? Of course you can. Wherever you look, there He is. How do you get hired by the universe? You must ask Him. You must use his language to communicate with Him. Hint: He speaks Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the Universe. What is the language of Hydrogen you ask, oh Carbon based life form? It is so simple as to defy comprehension. It consists of one phrase, one question, one answer all in one. It is not an equation. I hate to disappoint, but where Energy is Matter, the equations are not necessary. Transformation is the only process that goes on.

mkirkpatrick · **am I whom I think I might be? -** 02-08-2006, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruce the hoon

Hello Michael,
Do you mean the universe is all interconnected and alive? In this I agree and will be a kind of singular one life. As for us only being legends or figments of our own awareness, well that would mean that I would have imagined every event that has ever happened to bring about this conversation. I am all for a healthy self esteem but I do not want the resposibilty of being God. Rather I think we are all in it together and everything is a collective imaginative manifestation otherwise it would be like playing your self at chess. Extremely boring and predictable! We may have to take that on faith however, as, as you say, we have no objective or subjective proof of any awareness except our own.
Bruce.

Yes we are all interconnected,and the universe is the very embodiment of life its self,the One life,that is?

kind regards michael.

mkirkpatrick · 02-12-2006, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Michael,
What's objective reality? I have always harboured the secret question of whether we exist only to act as hosts to viruses...I could certainly be myself dreaming of me, but I could also be a Hungarian princess dreaming of me. How do we know and will this knowledge affect us? I don't think it will. If I am a dream or if I am an "objective reality" I am still me. Unfortunately, I am having trouble with the notion of singularity (even collective singularity) because there is implied a notion of something to be singular from...

But then you have the question,who is this "I" that proclaims to be me?

kindest regards michael.

Guille · 02-12-2006, 04:27 AM

I can never know me completely. Therefore I am nver myself. Therefore myself is never I (reversing). Therefore the stranger is that 'who I could be' (I), and the me is myself which is 'the one I am'.

harmonygirl · **I am not existentialist -** 02-12-2006, 10:54 AM

Michael, that is the eternal quest of self-knowledge. I find that as soon as I figure out who I am, I have changed! (VERY Sissiphus!). Maybe the I is whomever i chose (or am destined) to be? Or maybe I am part of the all and maybe it doesn't matter which part? I know there is a whole section of some libraries devoted to the analysis that in the phrase "I think therefore I am" the I that does the thinking is different from the I that does the existing. I don't buy it.
Guille just because you can never know yourself completely, it doesn't follow that you are not yourself. Self-knowledge is not a precondition to existence. I don't know that the one you could be is necessarily a stranger. Interesting notion though...

Guille · 02-12-2006, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Guille just because you can never know yourself completely, it doesn't follow that you are not yourself. Self-knowledge is not a precondition to existence. I don't know that the one you could be is necessarily a stranger. Interesting notion though...

But what do I act of myself? All I can do, can act of me, is what I know of me, if there is something I do not know of me, I cannot act it. And me is what I act, for it is all of what I can do, therefore be, and this unites that what we know of ourselves is what we are of ourselves. I dislike the idea, and try to disprove it. But it's a good argument and it's hard to attack.