It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We create our own Reality. You think?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Rhonda Byrnes version of this is simplistic and a bit dishonest. I do believe that what you focus on or fail to focus on has some effect on what you experience.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Skyfloating]




posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   


If belief is what causes the reality to manifest and the man in the asylum believes he is rich, living in a mansion etc...then why has that not happened?


Who are you to say that it has not?

Upon what can you possibly judge the state of "reality" other than from observations of it? You may observe an asylum, but how can you know what he is observing? If he perceived you to be the one in the asylum, would you have any way of knowing that he did?

Why would you assume that your observations are any more significant than his?



But they are not in a mansion, have not manifested that reality.


They have not manifested that reality...for you. Just as you have not manifested your reality to them.

Have you ever seen a woman who is beated by her husband, but appears to believe firmly that he loves her? Perhaps your reality and hers are simply different. Have you ever dated a beautiful woman only to realize after you no longer love her that she is really quite plain?

Upon what basis is there to say that one truth or another is "more real" than another? I have no awareness of "reality" apart from my own awareness. That which I am aware of is the extent of my "reality." I see no reason to assume that my observable reality must necessarily agree with anyone elses.

Do you?



[edit on 26-7-2009 by LordBucket]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


Bit like Bruce Willis character James Cole in 12 Monkeys when he goes back in time from the future and ends up in a Mental Asylum with the future leader of the army of the 12 monkeys-Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt)



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual

You can't create a belief system to suit your own lifestyle.


isn't that what religion is all about?

the only problem is now those who live by the religion that suited past societies have a problem with the cycle essentially repeating itself...

this myth building and then tearing down isn't new..."god" is just as "Zeus" except the majority of people consider zeus a myth and god a fact...

insisting that the universe is GOD is semantics when by the same logic GOD is just "the universe"
a rose by any other name would be as sweet...



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   


You can't create a belief system to suit your own lifestyle.


Why not?

Wouldn't life potentially be a whole lot nicer if we did create our own belief systems instead of simply accepting those offered to us?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


One can't help wondering who comes up with these rules huh?
And even better yet how they expect to enforce them.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
It is my experience that the OP comments about someone telling people about imagining themselves in a fancy car creates the reality of being in fancy car is full of BS, BUT it not made up BS. What that charlatan has done is latched onto a real truth --that we do create our realities physically and otherwise through the interaction of our conciousness with the underlying undifferentiated stuff of reality so that form emerges from what are otherwise a number of potential states,

I do not doubt the reality of this having experienced it on many occasions. However, after years of trying to understand this it appears that the fundamental error this person is making is equating imagination with the focus of conciousness required to effect this real process. It is not as you imagine then it is so but rather as you will, then it is so. The process of being able to will something into existence takes years of discipline and training to achieve the clarity of thought and focus required.

Ironically, it also requires that one fundamentally transform one's self and view of the world in order to "get into sync" with the process. The problem with these charlatans' claims is that by the time one can actually create the reality of a sports car or big home, those things are no longer of interest.

I remember listening to Russell Targ talking about remote viewing and how his remote viewers had achieved a phenomenal success rate in predicting the price of silver (I think) in the stock market. The interviewer asked that if they could predict the stock market then why were they not all rich. The answer Targ gave was so right on that it was the one thing that convinced me that the stories of government remote viewers might be true. He said something to the effect of "By the time that the viewers were good enough to use remote viewing to be rich, it required that they change so much as people that getting rich was no longer of interest to them."



[edit on 28-7-2009 by metamagic]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I like the way this thread has turned out, nice responses. I'm repeating what has already been said but while I've never seen The Secret from what I hear I agree it is an oversimplification and money was a major motivator.

I was just wanting to say that "What the Bleep do we know anyway" is a much better movie that outlines this idea much better. Between that and books such as Living in the Light, I'm convinced and I was a materialistic atheist before.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DJones
 


It's my opinion that "What the Beep" concentrates way too much on the individual thoug. Just my two cents......



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Whose to say that's not the only thing that matters, which is kinda the point that I'm getting at.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
One of you is looking at the collective effects of many individual points of consciousness, and the other is looking at the effects an individual may cause simply by focusing and diving further into themselves. Imagine if we had both! But I agree most stress should be placed on personal responsibility first, so that we may first understand how to most productively interact with others in regards to the "great work."



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Similar claims have been advanced for the indigenous languages of North America. Joseph Epes Brown observes, "Among all Native American and Inuit languages, there is a blending of rich verbal and non-verbal expressions."v That is, the distinction between sound and word is not so clearly conceived as it is in modern languages. Moreover, "Spoken words or names are not understood symbolically or dualistically, as they are in English. . . . Such separation [between sound and meaning] is not possible in Native American languages, in which a mysterious identity between sound and meaning exists."vi Because they are not merely labels, names and nouns in such a language are an intrinsic and inseparable aspect of the being named: "To name a being, or any aspect or function of creation, actualizes that reality."vii

Traditional Native Americans will therefore use the real names of things only with great circumspection, for to name the bear, for example, will actually invoke its presence. The creative power of speech is again difficult for the dualistic mind to understand—just talking about something won't actually change it, right?—but we can see vestigial traces of this understanding in certain "superstitions" that survive to the present day. Chinese culture has strong taboos against speaking aloud dark possibilities, lest it bring them into reality. Even in America, we still knock on wood.

That words are not arbitrary labels affixed to an objective reality, but have creative force, echoes the Hindu association of certain sounds with divine forces and the Biblical equation of the Word with God, as well as the near-universal identity of breath and spirit.viii For what is a word but a special kind of breath? Word is an intentional breath, a meaning-carrying breath, a creative breath because it infuses meaning into a world that otherwise just is. Out of the raw material of nature, we speak a human realm into existence, just as the God of the Book of Genesis spoke into existence the material world. Like God, in whose image we are made, we speak worlds into existence.

www.ascentofhumanity.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 





But they are not in a mansion, have not manifested that reality.



They have not manifested that reality...for you. Just as you have not manifested your reality to them. Have you ever seen a woman who is beated by her husband, but appears to believe firmly that he loves her? Perhaps your reality and hers are simply different. Have you ever dated a beautiful woman only to realize after you no longer love her that she is really quite plain? Upon what basis is there to say that one truth or another is "more real" than another? I have no awareness of "reality" apart from my own awareness. That which I am aware of is the extent of my "reality." I see no reason to assume that my observable reality must necessarily agree with anyone elses.


If you are saying we live in our own little bubbles and the only reality we see is our own…that may be true on some level, however we are impinged upon by others (who are in their reality), and by other events and circumstances that are not in our imagined realities, not wished for in our realities, apparently caused by others. So our own realities are not autonomous but are touched by everyone else's reality.

On some level I am probably in the asylum, however that is not on a discernible material level of observation. The ‘crazy’ man may ‘feel’ he is rich and in a mansion but that is not real on the material level, only in his emotional state and reality.

If the crazy man believes he is in a mansion, fair enough. It falls apart though when he tries to leave his ‘mansion’ and finds himself dragged back to the ward, chained to a bed and sedated. So where is his reality then? Does he believe he is riding a pink unicorn and all is well, or does his ‘reality’ fall apart?

Yes, you can believe anything is your reality on an emotional level, and we all do that. Let’s take your example of the beaten woman believing she is loved. Eventually, although she may believe that with all her heart, the reality is that he does not love her, and that reality will eventually be realised to the woman. So no amount of believing that is her reality will make it so.

You may be able to believe in anything on an emotional level…but I do not accept, although I would love to, that you can manipulate the material world. Or rather that it is as simple as just wishing for something or believing it to be.

The point of the ‘Secret’ is not to imagine you have a car and therefore you have a car, even though you have to walk to work. It is that said car will manifest for you, magically, in the material world, just because you believe it will.
So in your argument, and let’s continue the car analogy here. Your crazy man believes he has a very expensive car. You say that is his reality therefore it is real and valid. He still has to walk to work as he has no car. He can believe he is driving, odd though that would look to the observer, but he still has no car regardless of what he believes.

If I believe, and my 'reality' is that I am living on an island in Hawaii, looking at a long form birth certificate, although I am actually in an apartment in a built up concrete jungle, and a bomb goes off outside my door...what is real? Do I imagine the sun shining, the birds singing as I crawl out of the rubble. My imagined reality is that I am safely on an idyllic beach, my material relaity is that I am crawling in rubble and now have nowhere to live. Bit of a problem there?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   


If you are saying we live in our own little bubbles
and the only reality we see is our own


That's not quite what I said. I said that: "I see no reason to assume that my observable reality must necessarily agree with anyone elses." I leave open the possibility that it might. That it might completely, or that it might only sometimes. Or that there might not be anyone else in the universe with whom to have agreement or disagreement. I simply don't know. More to the point...I don't see how it's knowable. I am aware of no possible evidence outside of personal observation that could possibly be used to come to any conclusions about reality.

Are you?

If you tell me that a bird chirped outside your window, you could be lying. Or I could be hallucinating. You might not even exist. All that I can know for certain is that I had the experience of someone telling me that a bird chirped outside their window. No more. No less.



however we are impinged upon by others (who are in their reality), and by other events and circumstances that are not in our imagined realities, not wished for in our realities, apparently caused by others. So our own realities are not autonomous but are touched by everyone else's reality.


This may be possible, but it is neccesary to make assumptions for this conclusion to make sense. For example, for your conclusion to make any sense whatsoever, you must assume that there are "others" for your reality to be touched by, and NOT that they are simply artifacts of your own perception.

They may very well be. But I am aware of no possible evidence that can be supplied to favor this conclusion.

Are you? Can you give me any reason to believe that these words you're reading on this screen were typed by a human being? Can you give me any reason to believe that these words are not your own subconscious mind supplying an idea to you through a hallucinatory fantasy?



If the crazy man believes he is in a mansion, fair enough. It falls apart though when he tries to leave his ‘mansion’ and finds himself dragged back to the ward, chained to a bed and sedated.


Why do you believe that? For this model to make sense, once again you must make assumptions. You must assume that there is some validity to YOUR perception of the scenario, that he is in an asylum. Why do you assume this? How can you? Your assertion that his reality will "fall apart" when he tries to leave is no different than him asserting that YOUR reality of him being in an asylum will fall apart when he walks out the door and nothing happens.

You may very well believe that he is an an asylum, and you may believe that your belief that he is in an asylum will have some sort of effect on his belief that he is not when some sort of arbitrary condition like "walking past the guards you believe are there" is met.

But why would you believe this if you didn't already assume that your belief that he is in an asylum in the first place is somehow more "valid" or "real" than his belief that he is in a mansion?

Why is your arbitrary belief more "significant" than his arbitrary belief?



You may be able to believe in anything on an emotional level…but I do not accept, although I would love to, that you can manipulate the material world.


Why do you assume that there IS a material world apart from your own perceptions? Oh sure...there might be. But can you give me ANY REASON AT ALL to believe that there is? Any reason? At all? I have no definite contact with a "material world." I simply have perceptions and experiences. I can assume that there is a material world and that I am observing it, and that this is the source of my experience. But I can also assume that I am simply consciousness having an experience. Either might be true. Perhaps both are true. Or perhaps something else is going on entirely. But I am aware of NO REASON to believe that either interpretation is more correct than the other.




but I do not accept, although I would love to,
that you can manipulate the material world.


Allow me to quote you from something that once filtered its way into my observable experience: "Do not try to bend the spoon. That is impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: There is no spoon."

Yes, thinking at a material object and expecting it to change just because you thought at it doesn't make a lot of sense if you assume that there is a material object and you're observing it. But if you instead assume that there is no material world at all, and that you and your beliefs are creating an experience for yourself...then choosing to change the experience you are creating is perfectly reasonable.

[quote[
what is real?


That depends on which assumptions you choose to make. As I've said several times now, while the perspective that there is an objective, material world out there that we are observing is possible...I am aware of no evidence to either confirm or deny that this interpretation is correct.

The only definition for "reality" that I can give with certainty...the only answer to your question "what is real?" that I can offer...is that "reality" is "that which is observed." "That which is experiecned." If you have an experience, then that is reality. I can make no assumptions as to the source of the experience, whether it was created by you or given to you. I can make no assumptions as to whether or not anyone else shared the experience, or even whether there is anyone else to share an experience with. Only that an experience was experienced.

That experience is reality.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   


however we are impinged upon by others (who are in their reality), and by other events and circumstances that are not in our imagined realities, not wished for in our realities, apparently caused by others. So our own realities are not autonomous but are touched by everyone else's reality.


This, incidentally, is what I personally suspect is probably the "truth." I can give no objective reason to believe that it must be correct, but it is an interpretation that resonates with me.

Here it is:

There is only one consciousness. "Ours." At some levels, that consciousness perceives itself as divided. At some levels, this perception of division is so perfect, that consciousness does not even perceive itself as divided, but rather, perceives itself as "other."

These self-perceptions of "other" interact with one another because thery are the same cosnciousness.

There is no "fundamantal" material world. There is only consciousness. The "material" world has substace, has validity, because consciousness perceives it. Perception is more "real" than any hypothetical "material stuff" could ever be.

Because perception is what creates the perception of a material world...and because these "self-perceptions of other" may have similar, or disimilar perceptions...there is a psuedo-shared experience amongst these self-perceptions that overlaps to varying degrees.

Consequently, at this level of experience, yes...your consciousness is real and valid. As is mine. And by you thinking something, by you believing it, you are able to effect a real and tangible "change" to my experience. But with six billion of us generating influences upon one anothers perceived realities, it is sometimes not easy for us, as individuals, to simply "think" an experience into existence. To some extent, my consciousness is "in rapport" with the other consciousnesses of this planet, and to whatever extent it is, my attempt to change reality meet "friction" where those changs are in disagreement with the perceptions/beliefs of these other consciousnesses.

Yes, "I" can change reality. As can "You." But the units of consciousness that are "you" and "I" might be likened unto atoms in a jar. Atoms are constantly moving about, each in their own ways. If all the atoms in a jar were to move in agreement with one another, a jar could choose to slide across a table on its own. But it is difficult for a single atom to move the entire jar without the cooperation of other atoms.

Perhaps if I perceived myself as the jar, rather than as an atom, I might be able to move the jar.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
If I were to create my own reality it wouldn't be this. What a strange trip it has been so far. I have the weirdest things happen to me.
I once had a dream that happened exactly in real life a couple weeks later. Word for word; action for action. Did I somehow create this reality? I wander.
Life is really biazzare. My late grandmother; (rip); would have told you the exact same thing.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 



There was an excellent thread about this, early in 2008.
It's very long, but well worth the read.

I would also warmly recommend reading about the Sufis, especially Henry Corbin's book about Ibn Arabi. Nobody interested in this subject can possibly afford to neglect the Sufis.


OT.: Hello again, Skyfloating & al.

I've missed you.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I pay attention as much as possible to the difference in telling myself what to believe and actually believing in it. Your reality is not your thoughts at all. Your thought are the basis, and your conscience holds the key. Let it guide you from what you already know than what you think you know. You know you are not going to buy a lamborghini. You know you need to start preparing for a career change. It sounds so elusive and vague. Just remember what Peter Pan had to do when he wanted to fly.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Thinking creates our reality (destiny). Because this thinking process (conscious or unconscious) is involved in every aspect of our daily lives, it simply goes unnoticed. To us its just life. We dont think about the mechanics of it, we just deal with the results of it. i.e. the situations we create for ourselves.

This concept is easy to understand for simple things, but a bit harder to get your head around for major happenings in our lives. e.g. You have an empty hollow feeling in your stomach. This feeling prompts you to think, "I'm hungry. I want to eat". So you go and fix yourself some food. That little peice of your reality started with a thought about being hungry, and you then turned that thought into your physical reality by making and eating food.

This is harder to understand for things that seem to come out of nowhere like accidents or winning the lottery, but I'll try to explain.

Thoughts are things. Once they are created, they belong to you, their creator. They are 'welded' to you until they are 'balanced'. Thoughts exist in your physic atmosphere and remain there until the right combination of time, place and circumstance present for the thought to exteriorise into physical reality. Thoughts can remain in this state for many lifetimes before the chance comes to build out into your physical reality. Thus the concept of 'Karma' or 'Destiny' and things that befall us with no apparent reason.

Why do bad things happen to good people ? Of course nobody thinks up bad stuff for themselves, but, all human thought and actions have consequences. When the criminal thinks up his plan, he gives little consideration to the fact that other people may be hurt or even killed, or that soon he could be in the dock listening to the judge sentence him to twenty years imprisonment. He only thinks of the money and the enjoyment it will bring him.

The fact that thinking creates our destiny does not mean that whatever we wish for is granted. What we really create is the 'lesson' of bringing that thought into reality. This is the purpose of physical life. We are here to learn. We are to learn that we are co-creators with God. More to the point we are here to learn what to create, and what NOT to create.

In the spiritual world, thought (creation) is instantanious. Before we can be let loose there, we need to understand the consequences of our power to create.

The realisation that we create our own destiny puts us firmly in the drivers seat when it comes to taking resonsibilty for our actions and our lives. When you fully understand that YOU have created your life the way it is, good or bad, you also realise that only YOU have the power to change it.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by triune
What we really create is the 'lesson' of bringing that thought into reality. This is the purpose of physical life. We are here to learn. We are to learn that we are co-creators with God. More to the point we are here to learn what to create, and what NOT to create.



But when and where are we supposed to use this accumulated "learning"?

Also, what could an infant, for example, who gets beaten to death possibly "learn" that could not be learnt in any other way?
And while I admit we don't know nearly enough about human consciousness, I still doubt that said infant had a structured (or ANY) thought universe that somehow provoked his/her violent death.

As I said in another post, unrelated to this one: I am NOT trying to pick an argument.
Not at all.





[edit on 29-7-2009 by Vanitas]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join