Copyrighted Logo

css menu by Css3Menu.com


 

Bruce's 5th book, a Home Study Course, is now available.
Books & Tapes by Bruce Moen
    Bruce's Blog now at http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/blog....

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Interpreting and perciving (Read 7500 times)
PhantasyMan
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 266
Québec
Gender: male
Interpreting and perciving
Nov 18th, 2008 at 8:37pm
 
Here an excellent post (http://www.my-big-toe.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2915)from Tom Cambell about how we interpret data from the non physical.  I think it could be helpful to share it here!

Below is some text taken directly from my Austin workshop notes. I thought it would be useful to post it here to help readers better understand the nature of experiencing NPMR.

To make rational sense out of (and to be able to communicate) your personal NPMR experience you turn that experience into metaphors and symbols that have specific meaning to you (relate to your experience database). So, much of what you see, hear, smell, feel and taste while in NPMR (interpretations in terms of PMR physical senses that have no applicability in NPMR) is created by yourself as the closest pattern match you can make, to bridge between what you experience and what is in your personal experiential database. The more you probe, explore, make connections, and gain understanding, the greater and more capable that personal experiential database becomes in its ability to interpret NPMR experience with a minimum of distortion.

It should be clear why skepticism is so critical, why you must learn to live with uncertainty (reality anywhere is more probable than certain) and why just zipping around experiencing whatever, is not very productive compared to a systematic probing and collecting of data in order to assess what is fundamental and outside of you from what is not. It should also be clear why those who do just zip around experiencing whatever without skepticism or deliberate logical probing, come back with lots of exciting fanticiful tales to tell that, for the most part, mean nothing in a literal-detail sense and typically agree only with the observations of others who share similar cultural beliefs. While the details are different, these stories are most similar in terms of the generalities that carry the actual significance of the NPMR experience in terms of shared metaphors and symbols. Also there is agreement when shared beliefs and expectations lead to using similar metaphors and symbols to interpret one’s experience (unintentional leading the witness toward a specific generally acceptable conclusion). All these stories only fuel the expectations and beliefs of their listeners and make real understanding that much more difficult. Now we must drag ourselves out of the jaws of a deeply ingrained belief trap before getting a glimpse of the bigger picture that Is not severely warped by the limitations of a host of explorers who mean well and are doing the very best they can to interpret accurately but who do not understand the nature of reality and are content to believe that what you see is what is out there.

This is the most difficult concept for people to get. Almost no one actually gets it at a fundamental level. That is why we talk of NPMR as a “place” with dimension where we have bodies and use our physical senses to describe what we see, hear, etc. Of course that is all oxymoronic – you don’t have a body or physical senses in NPMR, but we speak that way and use additional metaphors (like “the mind’s eye” or OOBE) to cover the inconsistencies that such assumptions generate in order to communicate to people who cannot conceive of any other way of interacting. ---- A simplistic way of speaking in order to communicate anything at all. Sort of like atoms being basket balls with BBs flying around them in circular orbits. A Complete fiction but far more understandable than the truth.

For these reason, the Hindus see 7 very specific chakras, while the Zen Buddhists and shaman do not. Why? chakras, are only metaphors and not fundamental. The beams of intense white light that light-workers use to heal are just tools/metaphors. Light is only a metaphor. Energy is only a metaphor. The various energy bodies (auras) we see around people are metaphors for the data we receive about those people – data that answers our intent when we connect with people at a level deeper than the physical. People travel through tunnels or go through doors or fly about in NPMR because they believe that you have to move to go somewhere. Early astral travelers were connected to their bodies by silver cords because they believed the physical body was fundamental and the astral body was derivative. People have to sit up or roll or do something physical to get OOB when only a shift of perspective is necessary because they believe you have to do something physical before anything can happen. People talk to (interact with) their dead relatives who appear in familiar looking bodies wearing typical clothes because that is more natural, comfortable and believable than interacting with data. Ever wonder why all those non physical entities are humanoid in form (if they are good guys) and are always wearing PMR clothes – have you noticed that robes are always in style for strangers in NPMR. All is nothing but data moving back and forth and we dress it up in human PMR form and function from our past experience because that is what we are used to, that is what we believe and the way we think – so that is the way we interpret the data.

Explorers report what they see with their own eyes. However, eyes exist only in PMR -- seeing is a physical concept. In NPMR we don't see, we interpret what we experience (the content of the data) in terms of physical sense data because that is our habit -- the only way we know how to express/communicate information. Being skeptical, having no expectations, and not having any biases or beliefs is critical to getting a good pattern match metaphor that captures the essence of the NPMR experience.

In any reality frame, One must strive to become aware of one’s abilities and limitations and discover the operational causality of the immediate environment.

Because of the nature of consciousness (units of bounded organized data, sharing bits), everything is subjective, only consistent well planned probing and a statistical analysis of the results of that probing -- i.e. carefully considered experience, can give you a sense of what the objective reality behind the data is like.

Mostly NPMR experience is relationship centered (about interaction with others) as opposed observing the set. PMRs have sets (a stage and props) while NPMR mostly has just actors and ideas (data).

Picking up a rock in PMR has no direct analog in NPMR. People know that either you can pick up a rock or you cannot. If you say you can pick up a 100 lb rock then that is easy to test conclusively. If you say you do remote viewing or OOB, people expect you to describe the painting hanging in the next room – and do so just as if you physically walked into that room. Maybe can, maybe can’t – there are many variables.

What is “objective here” and what is “objective there” are as different as rocks and data. This misunderstanding accounts for much difficulty for psi researchers and the public in general. They believe that operating in the non physical must be similar to operating in the physical. Either you can do it, or you are as bogus as a 3 dollar bill. There are real physical and mental issues of attaining and maintaining precise altered states – and even more difficult: remaining perfectly detached. No doubt these conditions can be exceedingly difficult to consistently achieve on demand. But that is not what I am talking about here. These individual problems are in addition to issues that are fundamental to the nature of consciousness

The process of perception is the same in all reality frames (objective source with a subjective interpretation) but the mechanics in PMR and NPMR are very different. One might ask: If our Physical world is really subjective why does it appear to be objective – the same to everyone? Answer: Because we all have nearly identical physiology (sensors). And, to a lesser extent, very similar cultures. Lets explore the differences: What if some people could only see Visible, or UV or infrared light? Different perceptions produce different realities. Have you ever experienced not being able to find something that is right in front of you – that is usually a belief issue. The key concept is: NPMR is experienced through your consciousness – your consciousness represents an awareness limited by what you come in with (physiology, personality, and consciousness quality) and the PMR experiences you have after you get here – all of which influences how you interpret those experiences through a complex iterative process of choices generated by feedback. In NPMR, You experience through your consciousness, not through your senses. Do we all have nearly identical personalities, beliefs, and experiences like we do sensory equipment? Do we all interpret the same experience in the same way? 5 people viewing the same accident from the same corner give 5 different stories – why? Then why would one expect that we would all perceive the same reality in NPMR when our sensing mechanism (consciousness receiving data) is so dramatically individual?

The language of consciousness within the less constrained virtual realities (what we call the nonphysical) is about the choices, the intents, the web of interaction, about learning potential –- People and relationship -- not on the details of the set or on the petty ego needs of the players. The details of the set are peculiar to your PMR experience and personal in how they relate to you -- but have no intrinsic value or importance. They are often not saved in the databases in high fidelity detail – you may, in your remote view of the historical database, notice a picture on the wall but the details of the picture are not recorded or displayed unless there is some big picture need to do so (some meaning or significance or some connection to someone’s growing up). Insignificant data is not tracked or stored. Ever notice things that you have seen 100 times but never recorded? Neighbor’s green shutters ; a comic book store. The finite resources of the larger consciousness system are not wasted on recording and displaying things that are not relevant to the purpose of the system.

“What you experience (data received) does have an objective source within the reality frame you are in. but how you experience it is subjective.” Here, in PMR that subjective component is in the margins (5 people all see an accident from the same corner) – in NPMR – data exchanges between very fundamentally different interpretive consciousnesses -- the difference is not in the margins – it is primary.

Data from NPMR: Try to describe the room you are in both conceptually and linearly. The conceptual lacks detail but captures ambience and significance while the linear is a descriptive list of items. For those in PMR it is the linear detail ( the facts) that constitutes “proof” because PMR residents extrapolate their sense of an “objective” physical reality to their expectations of NPMR. However, NPMR bandwidth is not wasted on insignificant PMR details.


Let’s explore the idea that you interpret the data you receive from NPMR in terms of metaphors and symbols that mean something to you – that are relevant to your experience data base.
For example: You experience a NPMR being of great knowledge teaching or helping others on a grand scale. As a result, you interpret: Saint, angel, Jesus / Ancestor, guru, Master / Advanced Being, guide, helper depending on your beliefs and culture. If You have a deep fear – insecurity – that you are small and out of your element when in NPMR, you may get a monster, an evil being as a metaphor or symbol of that fear.

Another example: You are asked to remote view and describe a picture on the wall. The picture is of horses jumping over a hedgerow on a sunny day with onlookers -- a picture of an Old English Fox hunting scene. You get the fundamental nature of the picture – a sense of jumping animals, lots of commotion and excitement, a mix of people and critters – staged drama, something impending, an uncertain ending. Because you are not at all familiar with the experience of fox hunts, but have been to many circuses, you interpret this data as a circus act – horses or other animals jumping – multiple animals, lots of commotion and excitement, a mix of people and critters – staged drama, something impending, an uncertain ending. So you say: “It’s a picture of a circus act involving people and animals doing tricks – with the ambiance of a bright, fun, and expectant holiday outing atmosphere ….. except, you say, there is this overtone of violence that just doesn’t fit. if you are NOT a practiced observer, you might add in some clowns and elephants just to make your circus metaphor more complete. The little red hats the fox hunters are wearing are entirely missing from your received data because they carry no value or significance in NPMR terms. They are meaningless details of the PMR set not worth recording. Though you get a 100% as far as receiving the NPMR data describing the picture accurately, your metaphor is wrong and much detail of the setting (e.g., red hats, woods, etc) is missing – from the PMR view (where the physical setting detail is the most important thing – a literal, linear list of the stuff in the picture) you failed miserably and get a zero. Point: when your intent says: “what is that picture about, what does it look like”, you should not expect to receive a photographic image of the picture. You will get only data that captures the significance of the picture from an NPMR perspective and you will have to interpret that data according to your experience base.

Fear, Belief, and Inexperience are the primary constraints that keep you from experiencing what is actually there (the full content of the data). Not from experiencing at all, but from experiencing what is actually intended by the larger consciousness system to answer your specific intended query.

Tom C
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Interpreting and perciving
Reply #1 - Nov 18th, 2008 at 11:42pm
 
Thanks for posting this Phantasy Man.
Yes, Tom Campbell talks about some things to keep in mind here. Basically, it's the same what Bruce is telling (perceiver, interpreter etc.). Many points are of practical relevance, but still I'd like to make some comments of more philosophical nature, which as well, subtle and in the long run, could have practical consequences, too.


T.C.:
"The process of perception is the same in all reality frames (objective source with a subjective interpretation)"

Comment:
That's questionable. What is an "objective source" at all? It must be something without any interpretation, as any interpretation would turn it into something subjective. So, either there are entities with something like a "direct perception" (problematic), or the objective is this which is left unperceived. Then it's senseless to state that there "is" an objective source. The same problem occurs with KANTs "Critic Of Pure Reason", though KANT was more aware of this than T.C. seemingly is. KANT states that one cannot tell anything about the "things in itself", even "things" of course is already too much said, so at some points KANT called it just the "X" (or so). It remains problematic for KANTs own system, too.
------------------------------
T.C.:
"If our Physical world is really subjective why does it appear to be objective – the same to everyone? Answer: Because we all have nearly identical physiology (sensors). And, to a lesser extent, very similar cultures."

Comment:
Of course, but it is more complicated. The subjectivity is not addressed here. Even when we are of the opinion we perceive the same thing, we don't know what actually the other is experiencing. We may state we both see the color "blue" with a specified frequency, but what the other really is experiencing we'll never know for certain. If we hold this uncertainty for not true, we have to add an element of trust, for example something like "immediate evidence" . This would undermine the concept of subject-object, as it would implement a closer relationship of each consciousness to what is commonly called the "outer world" than is tolerated by the subject-object division.
----------------------------------------
T.C.:
"In NPMR, You experience through your consciousness, not through your senses."

Comment:
First, I'm not sure what's ment here. In the physical, physical senses are part of what we experience, but our consciousness, too. I guess he means in the physical there's another "filter" of interpretation, additional to our individual consciousness.
   But it's still superficious. Because basically, nothing has changed. Now, in the nonphysical, you could call "your consciousness" your senses. More so, I can't help but all our senses and/or it's output (to follow this simplistic system) is part of our consciousness isn't it? If it won't, well, we won't be conscious of it. That doesn't make sense.
   And, what does it mean when I "experience through" my "consciousness"? So there's me, and then there is my consciousness through which I perceive? Hmmm...
---------------------------------------

T.C.:
"Insignificant data is not tracked or stored. Ever notice things that you have seen 100 times but never recorded? Neighbor’s green shutters ; a comic book store. The finite resources of the larger consciousness system are not wasted on recording and displaying things that are not relevant to the purpose of the system."

Comment:
That's simply a non-backuped opinion. Additionally, there's no reason for "The finite resources of the larger consciousness system" not to be capable of storing everything what ever happens in the physical. This is very simple worded; what I want to point at is, we must consider that the physical is already a consciousness system, rather than to be a set of matter parts which is observed by some larger but limited consciousness saying "Nah, I guess that's not important, I throw it away" or "Oh, that's interesting, I'll keep that" .
------------------------------------
T.C.:
"Fear, Belief, and Inexperience are the primary constraints that keep you from experiencing what is actually there (the full content of the data). Not from experiencing at all, but from experiencing what is actually intended by the larger consciousness system to answer your specific intended query."

Comment:
Of course it's useful to become aware of how we're shaping our reality. But T.C. is heading towards the, or a sort of, truth ("the objective", "what is actually intended") while I can't see how this truth can be in any way received by an entity, when there is a subject-object split which requires perception and therefore an inevitable altering (the perceived thing isn't the thing itself).


Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
PhantasyMan
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 266
Québec
Gender: male
Re: Interpreting and perciving
Reply #2 - Nov 19th, 2008 at 4:35pm
 
Hi Spooky,

Yeah It's almost in the same way of Bruce's perspective (perceiver, interpreter).  That's why I posted it.

Quote:
T.C.:
"The process of perception is the same in all reality frames (objective source with a subjective interpretation)"

Comment:
That's questionable. What is an "objective source" at all? It must be something without any interpretation, as any interpretation would turn it into something subjective. So, either there are entities with something like a "direct perception" (problematic), or the objective is this which is left unperceived. Then it's senseless to state that there "is" an objective source. The same problem occurs with KANTs "Critic Of Pure Reason", though KANT was more aware of this than T.C. seemingly is. KANT states that one cannot tell anything about the "things in itself", even "things" of course is already too much said, so at some points KANT called it just the "X" (or so). It remains problematic for KANTs own system, too.


Well, I think (from what I've understand), that this objective source is the "object".  Your consciousness exists and has a defined structure (objective).  What is subjective, is how you interpret it, is subjective.


Quote:
T.C.:
"In NPMR, You experience through your consciousness, not through your senses."

Comment:
First, I'm not sure what's ment here. In the physical, physical senses are part of what we experience, but our consciousness, too. I guess he means in the physical there's another "filter" of interpretation, additional to our individual consciousness.


He means that here, to experience (not to observe) this physical reality, we need our senses to perceive it and interpreting it in your consciousness.  When you're in the non-physical, you don't perceive directly through your consciousness...

Quote:
  But it's still superficious. Because basically, nothing has changed. Now, in the nonphysical, you could call "your consciousness" your senses. More so, I can't help but all our senses and/or it's output (to follow this simplistic


Spooky, it's playing with words  Grin  Of course you could call consciousness the primary sensors, but it needs sub-sensors to perceive sub-reality.  Make sence?

Quote:
Comment:
That's simply a non-backuped opinion. Additionally, there's no reason for "The finite resources of the larger consciousness system" not to be capable of storing everything what ever happens in the physical. This is very simple worded; what I want to point at is, we must consider that the physical is already a consciousness system, rather than to be a set of matter parts which is observed by some larger but limited consciousness saying "Nah, I guess that's not important, I throw it away" or "Oh, that's interesting, I'll keep that" .


It's not about data of physical reality, it's about details of what it's perceived in the larger reality (non physical). 

Quote:
Comment:
Of course it's useful to become aware of how we're shaping our reality. But T.C. is heading towards the, or a sort of, truth ("the objective", "what is actually intended") while I can't see how this truth can be in any way received by an entity, when there is a subject-object split which requires perception and therefore an inevitable altering (the perceived thing isn't the thing itself).


Of course there is always subjective 'distortion'.  But if it's only 2%, we can easily get the good interpretation of what we're perceiving. 

pm
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Interpreting and perciving
Reply #3 - Nov 19th, 2008 at 8:46pm
 
You know, as I said, there's much practical value in what you quoted of T.C.. But everytime he touches philosophy it's just superficious. Comments on your comments:
-------------------------------------
PM:
"Well, I think (from what I've understand), that this objective source is the "object".  Your consciousness exists and has a defined structure (objective).  What is subjective, is how you interpret it, is subjective."

Comment:
The concept is clear. But I hold it for naive. What is an "object" when everything we can know is just an interpretation? The answer is: Nothing. Because we would never know what of our knowings is matching the "object" and what not; and even this is too mildly expressed, an object cannot "be"; something can only "be" when there is someone who says that it's there, and then it isn't a pure object, but an object of someone's mind, and therefore subjective.
--------------------------------------------
PM:
"He means that here, to experience (not to observe) this physical reality, we need our senses to perceive it and interpreting it in your consciousness.  When you're in the non-physical, you don't perceive directly through your consciousness..."

Comment:
But then there's a problem: Is there no perception, but only experience in the nonphysical? This could mean two things: Either we don't have any informations of anything "new" or "outside" ourselves, or we would have (experience instead of perception) unbiased, direct access to what you called the object; but this would mean unfortunately the ceasing of the subject-object division, because a direct access, without a medium, would mean "be" the object, which in turn would annihilate the object because there's no subject anymore.
--------------------------------------------------

PM:
"Spooky, it's playing with words  Grin  Of course you could call consciousness the primary sensors, but it needs sub-sensors to perceive sub-reality.  Make sence?"

Comment:
Don't blame it on me, blame it on T.C.  So now, as you talk of sub-sensors, we again have perception and perceptors in the nonphysical (see above)? But then it's as I said, principally nothing has changed, only the specifics of the sensory system has changed.
----------------------------------------------------

PM:
"It's not about data of physical reality, it's about details of what it's perceived in the larger reality (non physical). "

Comment:
Then, what I've said would be even more valid. How could it be that there is an instance in the nonphysical (or beyond, I don't know) which  1. is, as following from T.C.'s words, unable to keep it's own data, unable to keep itself? 2. is filtering it's own information and throws a part of it away, how the heck should this take place? There even would be more resources necessary to judge the informations rather than just keep it I would think; as well, it would mean strictly linear time, as only when the past is lost, information can get lost.

------------------------------------------------

PM:
"Of course there is always subjective 'distortion'.  But if it's only 2%, we can easily get the good interpretation of what we're perceiving."

Comment:
Sure, but if we chose the subject-object model, we never know at what percentage we are.



Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
pedigree
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 87
Re: Interpreting and perciving
Reply #4 - Nov 20th, 2008 at 8:49am
 
spooky2 wrote on Nov 19th, 2008 at 8:46pm:
Comment:
The concept is clear. But I hold it for naive. What is an "object" when everything we can know is just an interpretation? The answer is: Nothing. Because we would never know what of our knowings is matching the "object" and what not; and even this is too mildly expressed, an object cannot "be"; something can only "be" when there is someone who says that it's there, and then it isn't a pure object, but an object of someone's mind, and therefore subjective.
--------------------------------------------


Our physics here on Earth have rules that make the subjective more objective thus everybody can see what a rock looks like without much change(measurement) from observer to observer. We call it an 'object'. Our senses all measure the same from person to person as our rules on Earth are so restrictive we have a good idea that we probably see the color blue the same as everybody else. Not 100% but most probably. A 3 year old child will see a car. They may interpret what it does differently to what you know a car does but it is still a car , an object. Take the car to someone who hasn't seen it before and they will tell you it is a car as well. It takes a consciousness to interpret the data but the data here will be the same because of these rules. The car will always be a car and be explained by someone who has never even seen a car before as the same 'object'.
In a non-physical reality with rules that aren't nearly as restrictive a non-physical car (I don't think there are any Wink) is still a non-physical car (object) but interpretations change measurements instantly thus the object can't appear as easily objective as the physical anymore but appear only subjective because of the quality/experience of consciousness observing the non-physical car. Not the same as the physical because of rules.







Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Interpreting and perciving
Reply #5 - Nov 20th, 2008 at 9:54pm
 
Hi Pedigree,

your example with the car is only half-right. Right is, there is an intersubjective constancy, so when I see a car (I have learnt that those things are named "car"), it can happen it drives away out of sight, and later I experience I see this thing and recognize it as the same car. Or I see similar things and call them "car", too; and other people do this, too. And they react similarly when a car with high-speed is approaching them, and so on. So far, so good.
   But now let's make a thought experiment. There is a person who, when we are experiencing something as "red", this person will experience this as "blue". But this person calls this color not blue, but  red, just as we do. Why is that? Because that person has just learnt from child on, that this color what this person is experiencing as "blue" everyone is calling "red". So, for this person it's "red", even while this person has a very different experience. There is no way to be sure what another person actually is experiencing. When other people react similarly to things as I do, I could guess that other people are experiencing similarly, but it remains just guessing. The reason why it all seems so "objective" is just this constancy in naming things and reacting to things, it is just learnt and convention, but we cannot be certain (in an apodictive-philosophical sense) that we experience similarly as someone else.

So, when you say "Our physics here on Earth have rules that make the subjective more objective" it's an assertion on weak ground. There's even a more profound reason why this is, (at least in the way you put it) not true. Think about this: I am ill, and I say "I feel ill". Now the objective part of this is when it is said: "Spooky is ill". Everybody can say that. It's an objective statement (it can be wrong, it can be true, but it's still an objective-type statement). But there's missing something, it's the fact that I am Spooky, and I am suffering from my illness. When another one says "I am ill", then it's obviously something different as if I said "I am ill". Because it simply is another person. We can try as much as we want, describe my illness scientifically etc., we still never can objectivate the statement "I am ill". It happens to ME. So, it turns out, the objective is this part of what we experience, which can be said by everyone without altering the meaning.
   I am of the opinion that every objective statement is stemming from a subjective, first-hand experience. The other way round, to state that there are objective-objects which affect us and then change into "only" subjective impressions is to make the second step before the first. Because we only can talk of our experiences, and not of pure objects. Objects are only conclusions from our experiences, they are constructed.

Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
Justin aka asltaomr
Ex Member


Re: Interpreting and perciving
Reply #6 - Nov 25th, 2008 at 1:52pm
 
PhantasyMan wrote on Nov 19th, 2008 at 4:35pm:
Quote:
T.C.:
"In NPMR, You experience through your consciousness, not through your senses."

Comment:
First, I'm not sure what's ment here. In the physical, physical senses are part of what we experience, but our consciousness, too. I guess he means in the physical there's another "filter" of interpretation, additional to our individual consciousness.


He means that here, to experience (not to observe) this physical reality, we need our senses to perceive it and interpreting it in your consciousness.  When you're in the non-physical, you don't perceive directly through your consciousness...



  I'm not so sure about the last sentence P.M.   Some data i get when focusing in the nonphysical, does not seem to get directly interpreted or translated through an accompanying physical sense system. 

   In a way it is still filtered, because it goes through my mind which obviously has been influenced and shaped to some extent by my physical experiences, and so i might think of the data in certain terms and concepts, which most likely are "off" in some way because of my own subjectivity. 

  But the actual pickup of info didn't involve a corresponding, physical like sense, wherein I thought I "saw, heard, felt, tasted, etc" something.     Sometimes I just "know" something deep within.

  The latter sense is perhaps harder to develop, because of the nature of the game we are involved in, and because you have to have a lot more trust, openessness and acceptance.   Not to mention inner clarity, a balance, and the faster vibrating ones own consciousness the clearer one can perceive. 

  It can be difficult at times to accept nonphysical info that comes in and which seems directly associated with a physical like sense, but people on average are going to more readily accept that because of the simple fact that it conforms more to known "physical reality" and that the huge majority of people, even many, many conscious explorer types still have some part of them, which says in the back of their mind that "the physical is real, a real reality, something unto itself".   

  Now my question re: the whole subjective vs objective perception is; what if an individual, unique consciousness "unit", merged completely with the All, and could hold all data within its conscious awareness simultaneously, but also focus on any one seeming individual aspect. 

  Would such a consciousness and conscious awareness said to be "objective", in that it could look at/perceive any"thing" from any and all perspectives, but synthesize all the "like" aspects and come up with the most possibly accurate understanding of whatever it is trying to perceive? 

  Sure, even then you could say it's still ultimately subjective, because the perception and interpretation is not essentially the "beingness" of what is being perceived, BUT boy if it couldn't get darn close in the above. 

  What do you and Spooky think about that hypothetical question?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Interpreting and perciving
Reply #7 - Nov 25th, 2008 at 6:39pm
 
For the most part, my non-physical experiences have served the purpose of helping my spiritual growth. When I read some of William Buhlman's books it seems that the same was true for him. It also seems the same was true for Robert Monroe, even though he ended up being a map maker sort. It seems as if Bruce also grew through his experiences, but the map maker factor seemed to be a bigger part of his experiences than what might be typical.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
spooky2
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368
Re: Interpreting and perciving
Reply #8 - Nov 27th, 2008 at 8:19pm
 
Hi Justin,
in the case you told, I think we could say subjective and objective fall together into one. It's still subjective (but depending on language-conventions of course), as long as this being is experiencing in a way in which "Here, Me", in the sense "it's MY business" is making sense. At the same time, it is always objective, because in the case you wrote of, when I, Spooky, said "I feel cheerful", this being would be completely merged with me as you said, and therefore it could rightly state "I feel cheerful" because I, Spooky, feel cheerful, (or more precisely, "I feel Spooky-cheerful", as this being could be aware of other cheerful persons). This being is simply, due to the assumption of a complete merge, experiencing like me.
   This has a side-issue we can think about. It's whether such a complete merge, after the above, would mean a merge of the "I's", too. People who talk of "souls" I guess would tend to the opinion that such a complete merge wouldn't necessarily mean a merge of souls, in the sense that there is then only one left. Others could think that the "I's" are automatically merged when there is an ongoing merge of all experiences/memories etc. of the participating "I's". I'm not sure about this.

Spooky
Back to top
 

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"
 
IP Logged
 
Justin aka asltaomr
Ex Member


Re: Interpreting and perciving
Reply #9 - Dec 4th, 2008 at 3:03am
 
Not sure of, or don't know either, but thanks for the reply Spooky.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print


This is a Peer Moderated Forum. You can report Posting Guideline violations.