The Self, the Universe, and Regent Leo

Okay. Here's the deal, and like all good philosophy, it ends with a question.

Pre-Modern philosophy was basically built on the idea that the Universe exists and is seperate in all ways from the Self. Each person, their own Self, had unique subjective positions in this objective universe. Every person was simply an observer of the Universe.

Philosophy after Descartes, and really culminating in Immanuel Kant, turned the idea on its head. Bertrand Russell explain's Kant's position like this:

Suppose you were born and lived in a Universe where everything was blue. All you ever saw was blue, in different shades. Now, the question: Is everything blue because it really is blue, or is everything blue because you have a pair of blue tinted glasses on your head, and have for as long as you can remember?

You see, in the first idea that the Universe is really blue, you are perceiving everything as it really is. In the second, you are perceiving it as such because of the way you are. Kant suggested this applied to Space, Time, Causality, Plurality, etc. You only see everything in space and time, for example, because you look through the "lenses" of space and time.

Obviously, Kant's idea had a profound impact. Kant suggested you can't actually know what the true reality was like, since you will always be coming to conclusions based on infromation from behind the lenses.

In some way, our Minds are influential on our perceptions of the Universe. Is it as Kant said, and we are the main reason the universe looks the way it does? Is it like the Pre-Moderns said, and we simply observe?

What do you think the relationship is of the Self to the Universe?

reply to post by Regent Leo


The only reason I put "Regent Leo" in the title was that I wrote two other posts before this, with varying names, and they were both taken. So as to not risk losing my work a third time, i wrote my name in the title.

Originally posted by Regent Leo
reply to post by Regent Leo

 

The only reason I put "Regent Leo" in the title was that I wrote two other posts before this, with varying names, and they were both taken. So as to not risk losing my work a third time, i wrote my name in the title.

Very intriguing topic I Have been trying to understand is the individual merely a perception of the subjective nature of the universe. Yet is it possible the individual does not exist in our mind but only as part of the universe merely an object or movement of the universe through the individual. The concept of individual alone dictates the conscious experience we have of the universe is through a self but is this manifested through many objective selves we portray of ourselves through our perceptions of the universe. Is know exactly knowing without the subject of the matter. Without the subject could define ourselves as human beings really being human beings or is an illusion which is created by our minds in the limited self reflected by space-time.

reply to post by Regent Leo


it is both true, you are an observer only with some obligations then for what is not you as living sense, but is related to objective life source facts existing

and you are yourself reality source for what you are as a living truly in any of your expressions and moves equally existing free fact means

I think i am gonna make things more complicated or not

To me the universe is nature and we are part of nature.
Lets say nature is life, and everything in nature lives, dead is non existent as everything in nature vibrates like a symphony.
Pure energy that vibrates and condenses into matter with its own vibration.
One could even say dead is something we invented, because as i see it there is only transformation into something else.
Our bodys when we are buried become dust or if we are burned it wil be transformed to heat-energy.
My answer is we are not separated from the universe, but we have clearly separated ourselfs from it.

reply to post by Regent Leo


Hello Regent Leo,

You want to know what the relation is from self with the universe? Self is the lens. Self is the basis on which personality is put. So self gives you the impression of separation from the universe from the beginning with the question "What am I?"
But let's not forget that the universe is also in us. And I'm not even referring to a religious teaching. I'm talking about the holographic universe. Every part of it has the imprint of the whole. And, until proven to the contrary, WE ARE part of it. And we are it, also. Another facet of indivi-duality...

reply to post by Aresh Troxit


exactly, this is duality truth, sense of more as living less and sense of living from more as being superior free real above all

this is why what i say is true, right life is getting out of universe or even anyone powers life, according to the concept of one life truth, as positive absolute free life result forever,

instead of loving a concept of your life to realize according to an image of positive living, love the concept of positive free life truth and you are logically guaranteed to get an absolute sense of always positive living one

unless all gods powers fall on your head to kill you abusively denying yourself right

reply to post by imans


we can picture the movements of god and nature in that, nature as the self rising proud for killing all as intelligent living and god moving all in powers puting self down, where god become thre the self more and more proud of being above all life powers, and here where they face being the same one, that love to the concept of positive life as free oness moves, instead of positive concept truth that is objective more certainty life always free out to love it

reply to post by imans


the idea is that if you become exclusively what you are loving as caring for to do and to be if you become your love as free living, then it is all yours and it cant be related to anything else

that duality sense is due to the concept of objective being the source of subject

objective has as a concept the subject perception is as its life, so it cant be the source of subject fact unless the perception is positive more, which then would mean an assumption how objective is itself life since more

but what god and nature are of, is that sense how what is objective is an object less, while feeding their wills to pretend being positive moves, so they become subject by using that object
but if object is source of subject then subject cannot be source of itself as object, and here where the duality character becomes alive

they sense being more then objective as free but also they sense how they depend on object as source, so they go above and then compromise under, but never get out and take a neutral perspective of all that existence fact
because they dont care about positive truth, there is no positive to them but them as living free moves, so if they are not happy or realizing something great they are not interested to see or analyze anything

subject is the source of positive translations, that become source of positive means objectively being
and therefore objective perspective is always an object realisation of a free positive source

duality concept is due to oppositions of two sources for one life result

so the result reality is never what you expected or wanted, and you get use to live in lies and hypocrisy ways to compromise what you guess can expect to get statistically

and when there is two sources is where there is no true move as the true positive source
the move subject is a will not a concern fact meaning objective or reality
and the objective move is not meant for what it is objectively, it is meant as stealing or pretense of getting to its wills

sorry for those posts add but it is for the same thought about duality which is a complex subject that i am just realizing the source of it in truth

Originally posted by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010
Very intriguing topic I Have been trying to understand is the individual merely a perception of the subjective nature of the universe. Yet is it possible the individual does not exist in our mind but only as part of the universe merely an object or movement of the universe through the individual. The concept of individual alone dictates the conscious experience we have of the universe is through a self but is this manifested through many objective selves we portray of ourselves through our perceptions of the universe. Is know exactly knowing without the subject of the matter. Without the subject could define ourselves as human beings really being human beings or is an illusion which is created by our minds in the limited self reflected by space-time.

Good reply. Certainly the individual is IN the Universe, but from the start, the Universe is outside of it in the empirical sense; that is, you sense the things outside of yourself as a child without subjectivity. This is pure objectivity, but the nature of concepts develop a subjective nature to it.

Space-time itself is based in the conceptual realm, that is it only exists in the ind. If it didn't it would be something we could observe, but instead we can only observe the objects that are "bound" by it. This is simply because we bind those objects by those things. Space-time is something we use to organize objects, time being nothing more than the mass movement of the Universe and space being nothing more than the dimensions by which we measure objects.

Originally posted by godddd
I think i am gonna make things more complicated or not

To me the universe is nature and we are part of nature.
Lets say nature is life, and everything in nature lives, dead is non existent as everything in nature vibrates like a symphony.
Pure energy that vibrates and condenses into matter with its own vibration.
One could even say dead is something we invented, because as i see it there is only transformation into something else.
Our bodys when we are buried become dust or if we are burned it wil be transformed to heat-energy.
My answer is we are not separated from the universe, but we have clearly separated ourselfs from it.

I like that outlook, but it still brings more questions. How, then, does one's mind perceive of reality? What is this relationship like?

The question is concerning perception. Where does our view of reality come from?
Is it give and take, is it only take, or is it only give?
Is it based in both the Universe and the Self, is it based only in the Universe, or is it based only in the Self?

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
reply to post by Regent Leo

 

Hello Regent Leo,

You want to know what the relation is from self with the universe? Self is the lens. Self is the basis on which personality is put. So self gives you the impression of separation from the universe from the beginning with the question "What am I?"
But let's not forget that the universe is also in us. And I'm not even referring to a religious teaching. I'm talking about the holographic universe. Every part of it has the imprint of the whole. And, until proven to the contrary, WE ARE part of it. And we are it, also. Another facet of indivi-duality...

Certainly! Very interesting. The beginning division of the Self and the Universe is the first distinction in the human Mind. It's important also that Descartes understood the only thing one could not doubt was that they are doubting, and that in turn they are thinking and therefore exist.

But what comes out of having this distinction? An interesting idea that Bertrand Russell put forward is that mathematics springs from logical laws, and that these are built in the very fabric of the Universe. But is the foundation of mathematics in the Universe or in the Self?

reply to post by Regent Leo


it is in both moves, the base is always absolutely so wether freedom move is the real whole point or the move free is the point itself alone making an absolute move
so it is wether the absolute source move a point or the point move absolutely and is called self point

now what move first this is the question, i think it depends the smallest true point could move first but the absolute source wholeness prepared it first by being aware of that possible to do first

reply to post by imans


imans, your posts are always pretty good. I just wanted to reply to them all at once.

The idea of objectivity vs. subjectivity is always a great one. The question is, does objectivity even exist at all? Certainly, no matter what, subjectivity exists. But in what way does the Universe exist, then, if it were the case that only subjectivity exists?

However, if you are all that exists, then there would be no point to your living in your mind; only escaping it into reality. So, we must have some form of an objectivity reality we exist in, apart from our Self; whether it is delusional or not is irrelevant (as both have the same results in the possibly false reality). This reality we call the Universe, and it is the world apart from our perceived Self (though it may just be a world in our mind, but it is still perceived as seperate from us).

The question of other minds in the Universe is one worth asking, but even more worthy of asking is how the rules in this perceived world follow logical and mathematical laws? If they are merely in one's mind, then why do they follow any rule? Is it because our mind follows an outside rule (or even internal, yet based out of something we're not aware)?

reply to post by Regent Leo


exactly, you dont seem to be aware of freedom motions facts before seeking to understand the reason of its life

freedom mean the positive free and the whole object free, it is an absolute fact life that is why there is the object of that fact which is freedom and the subject which is true free absoluetly
and then you have the truth of that which is void life

to have absolute fact it is of that two, when you have self fully living move absolutely and an absolute whole move then you have an absolute reality of a fact becoming living, an absolute life that truth confirm till endings how it is always absolutely positive ends

and of course from any movement confirmations of absolute, the move is present to others it cannot vanish and that generate others cycle to realize as absolute positive reality end

but the major issue i guess for you to understand, is what freedom is necessarly source of positive truth, from what you are of god that is evil to freedom truth you dont sense that and of course you wont quit god to see it

freedom is to not be for sure, but then since you are aware of it then as free you cannot be killed, so it is not being but not dead, the result is that something is there necessary as your awareness and the fact that you are not being make you focus as aware on what you are positive about whatever is there

and for the self and whole making absolute life, it is like the whole cannot see the self moving while the self moved from within, but it is the whole aware move so it sees as free something else more sense that make reality with without seeing it all
and also the self cannot see of course the whole from down, but it sense too in its moves some absolute reality life
but it is not important for me there, what matters is intelligence resolving facts of absolute reality life end that what i love really in these absolute facts, and also that maybe there is the whole outside to void whole being aware that would enlarge the dimensions of absolute positive and make a way to escape all those negatives of gods as illusion of course because we are stuck with that unsanity

reply to post by Regent Leo


My bet would be that it is in the universe. Self tries to make sense of it. I also say that the only constant in the universe is change.

reply to post by Aresh Troxit


the motion not change, free motions is the real constant

and the universe is a self to another dimension it is living full point move truly out of the whole object of it

you must understand what is the relation between reality ful positive living point and abstract object reference

the reference is determin in void of wholeness abstractions but a reality point is the full confirmation of the whole fact, that is why a cell can make a body

reply to post by Regent Leo


I think in the end all you can be really sure of is that you think you exist. But that be can be debated reasonably but never incontravertably IMHO. I look at the nature of reality in the here and now, what comes before is really based on which view point you take. The nature I speak of is pretty much like that picture of one hand drawing the other that is in turn being drawn by it. To me that could be viewed as reality shaping the individual and the individual shaping reality...... The rest is assumed "knowledge" of assumed "facts" and deeply dependent upon a person's viewpoint. Do you get what I mean?

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]