question about subjective vs objective reality

[Gandalf]

I have been reading with interest the discussions about subjective vs objective reality and what we usually term the astral.

However, I am still not completely sure I understand the implications of this. If it is the case that all of our astral experiences are 'objective interpretations' of subjective reality, does it then follow that if we try to minimise our expectations as much as possible so as not to create scenarios, then we may experience the genuine 'astral' enviroment itself ie an underlying subjective reality which is not distorted by our own expectations? Thats what i alsways assumed before, when exploring and i have previously thought when visiting areas like monroes focus 27 etc that these places appeared to exist independently of me.. ie I came to them with an air of curiosity but nothing more so i felt I was seeing the place as the residents saw it.

More on the issue of 'constructs'.. The concept of belief constructs can lead some people to think.. 'nothing is real its all a belief construct' or some such.. This problem comes about in the academic disipline of social anthropology too, where we analyse 'social constructs' and where it becomes apparant through comparing societies that all societies have their own unique social structures and values of 'right and wrong' etc.. so all features of society are made up of 'social constructs'.

The thing to remember though, as my anthropology tutor once pointed out..  is that just because something is a social construct (or a belief construct for that matter) that doesnt mean its not real.

It is real, all social constucts or belief constructs for that matter ARE real for the people who create them and they serve a valid purpose in allowing them to perceive the world..
Just because people *made* somethnig doesnt mean its not real or valid.

If it is the case that the physical world is a belief constuct it still means it is quite real for those who live in it.. indeed it is so powerful that in my opinion no-one born into it can possiblly reject its basic elemental features as they are too deeply ingrained from birth.
For example, Frank says that things like nutrition eating etc are belief constructs ie we believe that we need to eat in order to survive therefore we do.
This is correct i think, but I can guarantee that you will find no individual on earth, including you Frank, who could possible stop eating and live off  'sunlight' for example, and still hope to survive. You wouldnt because deep down the core belief structure that you eat to live cannot be removed. I think even if you did manage to convince yourself on a conscious level that you could live off sunlight for example, you would still starve to death because your unconsious mind is still unconvinced and always will be for your duration within physical reality.

The material world is probably the most persuasive belief constructs and for us is therefore VERY real.
I guess my main point is that the phrase 'its just a belief system' is getting banded about here quite often without stopting to realise the implications of the statement and also there seems to be slightly negative attitude about this phrase, as if because something is a 'belief system', it is not as good as 'greater reality': on the contrary, any 'belief' system' is a supreme act of creation, which we all have as part of our essential nature.. it is the very thing that allows for creation itself... it should be given its due respect.

Doug

Don't konw if that made any sense whatsoever haha! but make of it what you will... you are the creator!  

[Telos]

Doug, I learned a new word the other day, while reading a book on philosophical monism (link), that might help us - intersubjectivity. Here is its definition from dictionary.com.

2 entries found for intersubjective.

Main Entry: intersubjective
Definition: existing or occurring between conscious minds
Example: Something is intersubjective if people are capable of sharing it or holding it in common.
Usage: intersubjectively adv, intersubjectivity n

Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.5)
Copyright © 2003, 2004 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC


Main Entry: intersubjective
Definition: understandable, accessible, and relating to two or more subjects; objective

Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.5)
Copyright © 2003, 2004 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC

Essentially, it means "objective," but does not connote the same kind of separation between the I and It. Rather, it connotes a kind of co-creation. Frank is always saying that there is no separation between consciousness, so maybe "objective" is the wrong word to use?

Objective also carries the connotation of being removed from the emotions. I do not know how to translate "intersubjective" into the affirmation Frank suggests, "I want to objectively observe subjective reality." Frank, am I right in saying that when you use the word in this sense you are referring more to an emotional detachment?

There's also a wikipedia article on the usage of intersubjective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity

-----

I suppose I should divide the post at this point, because what follows is a kind of display of my confusion in the matter. I have been debating on whether I should remove it, but as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. ;)

There's an Intersubjective-Ego theory of psychology which states that all egos necessarily arise from personal interaction with other egos, and are co-created along with the environment. Feral children, who are raised in the wild with no human interaction, do not develop a sense of individualism. When they are shown a mirror, they look behind it, and do not appear to recognize that it is their own image. Likewise, they also do not develop the ability for language, and lack anything that we would remotely call a personality.

Are they creators of reality? Or did reality create them?

Is that the same thing? If so, isn't that coarsely rewriting the dictionary like a foreign-speaking guru, and manipulating words like a paltry sophist?

In a monistic framework, there is really only one creator, and that is both you and me and everyone else. Although to simplify it, people just say that "you" are the creator of reality. When applied to intersubjective reality, independent of your theory of psychology, that kind of simplification seems wholly contradictory, even damaging. I am not the only one in reality.

For the sake of the word "me," there are two - the me that is writing this reply who is distinct from you, Doug, and then there is the me that is the mono-substance that makes up the universe, that is not distinct from you. Now, regardless of distinction between us, there is already a distinction between the two me's - the "small me" and the "big me." That distinction appears to be different from the distinction between you and me. Because, I cannot come up to you Doug and say, "you are me!" That is servile brainwashing. Given that there are others who have supposedly reached enlightenment, removing the distinction between yourself and your Higher Self may be completely subjective.

To illustrate - perhaps I'm missing an intermediate experience. Something is separating me from where I am now and where I would be if I knew that I am a reality creating High Self. Is it because I've never actually noticed that I was creating reality as I was doing it? If so, then that sounds like a purely subjective experience, and one that is difficult to achieve in a social setting. You cannot rewrite the dictionary and say that society is me. It's not me. It's you too.

Could there be an intersubjective experience, one that we can share and therefore elevate all of us to the level of lucid reality creation? If so, can we create this event NOW, or do we have to WAIT for the "second coming?" As I see it, there are 2 ways of answering that question, and 2 optimistic ways to deny the question (as in, they don't say we're in Hell or something).

1) No, we cannot create it now. The kingdom of heaven is "immanent." Be virtuous in the mean time. Try your best to be happy, pray, evangelize, believe, etc. Basically, make preparations. (western religion)

2) Yes, can enter that reality now, in theory. Practice meditation, and instruct others in meditation. (eastern religion)

Then there are ways of denying the question.

3) You are already in the reality you want to be in. If you do not like your reality now, it's because you planned it this way before you got here. (dialectical spiritualism - a synthesis of eastern and western philosophy)

4) There is no time. The reality you speak of is already happening now and you are already there. (sage extrasense - beyond useful linguistic sense or "nonsense")

An answer like number 4 ignores most subjective experience. Right now, I am subjectively experiencing time, by virtue of the fact that I just said that I was experiencing it "right now," which is now before now. There is an observational relation. Moreover, it's intersubjective, even when we share Einstein's laws of relativity. The response to that is to ignore your classically held subjective experience, and especially your intersubjective experience, for the purpose of transcending time and space - to achieve a new subjective experience. Good luck with that.

Reality is supposedly created by one thing and the one thing is defined as "you," the "real you," which is the higher god self. But when you read that "you" create reality... does that disclude others from creating your reality as well? No, because they are you. So you necessarily create your reality by virtue of the fact that Higher Self is creating it's own reality. Well, which is it... do I have a servile relationship with my Higher Self, like the finger is servile to hand? Is that my only choice, to do as my Higher Self pleases (which is not always specific or explicit), or to be "selfish," (instead of Higher Selfishness)? Why is there a disparity? Both? Everything? Whatever.

When applicable to the material world, it's more correct to say that we create our reality. It is intuitively obvious. A group of Saudi Arabian terrorists created a reality for the residents of New York City on September 11th, 2001. There is no skirting around this issue. Likewise, in a more positive example, donators to the Hunger Task Force created a reality for the hungry by presenting them food.

What is at work in the above two examples? Belief constructs? You bet. But is there more to that? Did I make both of those belief constructs up, as if I was simultaneously the terrorists and a food donator? Is this because of the belief construct of material reality?

If so, then you must feel that you're responsible for September 11th, while simultaneously responsible for every other vice and virtue in existence. That way lies madness, disintegration, and oblivion.

[Frank]

Doug:

Very interesting questions and I think a complete answer to all the questions you raise would take many, many pages of explanation. But within the space constraints of the forum, my response to the guts of what I gauge you are saying is, as follows:

The problem is all of us are in the midst of a consciousness "shift" which will take place over next 30 or 40 years. As a race, we are about to take our thinking onto a new level, so to speak. Now, with a relatively small number of people, this shift has already taken place. However, many people have yet to even grasp the basics, and everyone else is somewhere inbetween.

For people who have already largely made the shift in thinking, or for people like me who are well on their way, life becomes in a way "split" between two modes of thinking. In order to interact with people who haven't yet made the shift, they actually have to revert to speaking and thinking in an entirely different set of terms. This is not difficult, of course, as it is just a case of going back to the "old way" for the duration of the interaction. This difference in terms I, personally, call speaking in "conventional terms" for the old way, and speaking in "unconventional terms" for the new way.

In a sense, it is like when decimalisation came about in the UK. Off the top of my head, I think it was in 1969. For about 15 years after we lived with the notion of "old pence" and "new pence". A similar situation exists in France now, where you get the main total of any purchase in Euros and the equivalent total in French Francs. Many elderly people still think in Francs and they translate the Euro total into Francs in their thinking. So as I am sure you can readily grasp, that's the way it is with any kind of "shift" or change in thinking that occurs en masse. There is always a transition period where we juggle the old terms or the old way, with the new, and people are translating between them.  

The same basic idea applies only this time we are not moving into using a different currency, we are shifting the very basis of our thinking. Essentially, we are shifting from engaging within victim/perpetrator constructs to engaging self-determination as a reality.

So holding the idea of transition in mind:

We form our reality from various core concepts. Each of these core concepts are held under one umbrella concept, which is the overriding entirety we call Truth. We cannot, however, engage Truth directly as a concept. Truth is a compound concept that is formed from the total engagement of all other concepts, constructs, ideals, etc. that are taking place within physical reality at any one time period or "age".

Truth, if you like, could be thought of as a core concept that is held as the ultimate ideal.

Each core concept is as "important" as any other by mere definition, as they are all core concepts. But if I were pushed to say the main one, it would be the concept of Social Justice and I shall use this core concept as an example here. But please bear in mind a similar situation applies with all core concepts and they all entwine with each other.

Now, stemming out from each core concept is a multiplicity of belief constructs attach to the central core concept in question. Some belief constructs are very affecting and, therefore, stem from the centre of the core, and others are what you might call sub-concepts that stem from other concepts. And you have major sub-concepts and minor sub-concepts, etc. All of which ultimately forms a huge interdimensional web of physical reality that we call our physical-life system.

The concepts are lodged within an area I call Focus-2 of consciousness. Essentially, Focus-2 of consciousness is what might be termed the sub-conscious; but I dislike that term as it's like the term Chakra, and others like it, where you have ever so many belief constructs attached to the term and many of them are conflicting, or just simply wrong, or only half right, or whatever else inbetween. It's a mish-mash in other words. So in describing areas of consciousness I very much prefer to switch to unconventional terms, as they describe both the nature and the areas of consciousness far more clearly and accurately.

Perhaps one of the most misleading aspects about the conventional term, sub-conscious is in the way it is typically related to an individual. Many people think of it as an individual sub-conscious that is somehow lodged in some hidden area of their brain that science has yet to uncover. When the sub-conscious is actually a common area of consciousness that we are all subjectively connected to.

Anyhow, as I say, all these core concepts and constructs are lodged within Focus-2 of consciousness. Depending upon which belief constructs we might happen to subscribe to, determines which of these constructs we choose to "bring into life" within the physical. It is entirely our choice, but that is speaking in very unconventional terms.

Very few people, relatively speaking, understand how we form our reality. Most people are open to the idea in a limited sense. For example, in conventional terms, if you put to someone the idea of getting a better-paid job and subsequently enjoying an enhanced standard of living, as an instance of a person creating the new reality of greater wealth, then I am sure most people would agree this is a situation where a person can create their reality.

However, we create ALL our reality. That means every individual creates his or her own reality. No-one co-creates with anyone. We are the very definition of Self Determination. But as yet very few individuals hold an objective understanding of that fact and it is having that objective understanding, which makes all the difference.

Each of us holds a pure desire for expansion of Self through experience. So we create these physical worlds and we place artificial barriers between here and there, and we separate ourselves into what we see as individual focuses of Essence or Soul, or Spirit (whatever terminology you subscribe to).

So, taking the experience of the core concept of Social Justice:

Stemming from this concept is the primary belief construct of Right and Wrong, and allied to this, of course, is the concept of Victim and Perpetrator. All of these conceptual structures are interwoven with the concept of "ideals" and we hold all manner of ideals together with a huge number of belief constructs attached, all of which come under the umbrella concept of Truth, which is held as a kind of ultimate ideal.

So we set all this structure in place and, to retain the purity of the Game, we place a big artificial barrier between here and there, then we start playing the Game of Social Justice based on the primary belief construct of Right and Wrong. To make the Game interesting we create a world where emotional energy predominates and we create a wide variety of situations; such as different skin colours, different races, different countries, vastly different socio-political and socio-economic structures, etc., all within one small physical-life system, and we set the whole thing in motion and see what happens.

To add greater spice, we mix this with a wide variety of other core concepts that create "basic needs" and we make a number of these basic needs of a finite nature. We couple this to the core concept of Time and we give our physical body a certain "lifespan" so we always tend to be operating under the impression that time is "running out" (lol).

But against the background of the wider reality, there is no Right and Wrong, nothing is Finite, no Time is running out. It's just us exploring the concept of Social Justice, along with a myriad of other core concepts and subsequent belief constructs, within this physical-life system. All of which we created for this specific purpose.

Problem is, for the purity of the experience "the barrier" has to remain in place. Otherwise, people would not be so convinced. Anyone penetrating that barrier while immersed within this reality would immediately see that it's all a Game. They would realise, for example, that there are many other physical worlds that we have created in order to explore all manner of core concepts and this is just one of them.

Now, quite a number of people have penetrated the barrier to a certain extent. But they do so from the position of still being immersed in the Game. In other words, they see the non-physical realms they are accessing as a means of extending their current Game play. So the ongoing struggle between Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, etc. is extended to take place within not only Focus-1 of consciousness (the physical) but Focus-2 of consciousness also. Which, personally, I find a particularly interesting development.

Within Focus-1 of consciousness this game play is, of course, quite real.

However, once a person has penetrated the barrier and has realised that it is all game-play then all the fun goes out of it. I suppose it becomes the equivalent of reading a murder mystery novel when you already know the whole plot. It rather takes the fun out of it, and you want to move on and try something else. This is what is set to happen with us lot over the next 30 or 40 years.

Instead, we will enter into a New Age, and this is the true definition of New Age (not the current touchy-feely stuff) of engaging Self Determination as a reality.

It has been happening for a while, but events are gathering pace more quickly now and will progressively accelerate over the coming decades. During which time, people are steadily going to realise that we in fact create all our reality.

Under such circumstances, therefore, there can be no victims or perpetrators! Our whole notion of "conflict" and "disease" for example, is founded upon the concept of Victim and Perpetrator. So steadily, as more and more of us engage in the core concept of Self Determination as an objective reality, there will be progressively fewer conflicts and diseases. There will be a myriad of other changes too. For example, all the religious and mystical belief structures will fall away to reveal a new Truth (thankfully).

You also talk about your thoughts regarding interaction within subjective reality, which I propose to answer in another post as this post is primarily to do with physical reality and it is already long enough. So I'm going to leave it here and come back to the subjective questions later on.

Yours,
Frank

[Gandalf]

thanks guys.. interesting contributions which I will have to digest more carefully when i get a moment, thanks for the replies!
I agree that my first point is really another topic which should be discussed elsewhere.

Doug

[Willis]

Frank, do you have any suggestions that will help people who desire this kind of shift move more rapidly through these changes of mind?  Is there information out there or advise you have that can help an individual to bring about this shift faster on the personal level?  Or is it a matter letting the "wind" take you where your gonna go?

I see difficulties for us in the coming 30-40 year period due to biosphere degradation and environmental collapse/species extinctions.  I am trying to educate myself and others more fluently in the area of ecology, consumerism, and the human spirit.  This "shift", I believe, will have to take place in a very short time frame to avoid very trying times.

Please visit my website at www.oneplanetonelife.com (a work in progress) to get an idea of the urgency I feel for this movement.

Once again, thank you for the great posts.

[MontanaHayseed]

Really interesting discussion going on here

The question of when subjective impressions are internally generated as opposed to registering something external, or the nature of the combinations possible, is a really interesting one that I have been facing for some time now, without a whole lot of success I might add.  

I do use test questions...  "Would the unconscious have any reason to produce such an impression?" ; "Does the content have any emotional valence for myself and if so what is it?"  Any kind of "yes" answer means I tend to strongly discount the possibility that the impression refers to outside activity.

Too, thoughts, feelings and impressions all have a particular "flavor"  or "feel" to them that identifies,the source once it has become familiar.... mush the same as all the thoughts of a person have a family resemblance, so to speak.... and it can be pretty obvious, if a person is aware, when a thought feeling or impression that would not ordinarily be his shows up.

For example, and this may be a weak one but it is fairly solid...  Back as a youngster, I once made love to someone with fairly strong myopia.  For several days after that, I kept having the impression of having some sort of watery bubble on my eyes.... I realized later that it was the impression "from the inside" of my significant other's contact lenses...  something with which I was completely unfamiliar, as I was, at that time, with the very idea that such a thing was even possible.

But to return to the original missive about the muddiness of things when we discover that we do indeed create (both individually and collectively) our own reality,  I have good news

It was widely reported in the press a couple three years ago that a passel of scientists had cooped up some professedly non-eating swami in a lab for a few weeks, thinking to out him as some sort of crank.  It turned out that he was the real McCoy, outing instead the reality that materialist models of reality leave some things completely unexplainable.  I will hunt for a link to the story, if I can find it I Will post.

MH

[MontanaHayseed]

Here it is:

http://www.amazingabilities.com/amaze5b.html

If you find the story suspicious please post here so that others are not misled.

Thanks,
MH

[MontanaHayseed]

arrrg.

Forgot to include this thought in the above:

Given Mr. Bruce's insight that we have several  individual interacting interdependent "concsioussnesses", ie physical, etheric, astral mental and  what not, and that they collectively form  "our self" much as, to use another mystic's metaphor, chamber music is formed at the participation of many independent cooperating operatives, then it makes sense to suppose that at each level there is a form of the subjective/objective issue.

As with so many early thoughts, it doesn't clear anything up, but seems to makes the fog a little less unmanageable.

[Telos]

(Emphasis mine)

However it should be made very clear that we have confirmed the claim over 10 days only and we as scientists and responsible doctors cannot say anything regarding validity of the claim of his sustaining without food, drinks, urination and excretion of stools over several years.

Our attempt is to understand this wonderful phenomenon having confirmed from our side over these 10 days and we are not sure whether this is reproducible in other human beings by the way of YOGA as he practices, or by other methods like Genetic Engineering. If so, also we are not sure whether and how it can contribute to human welfare. At the moment, we are trying to analyse the results and trying to learn for the betterment of science. Probably some invasive investigations may help understand this process, but from the beginning Mr. Jani has refused any invasive procedure or any sort of injections be it a dye only.

[RenaissanceMan]

Frank writes:

Very few people, relatively speaking, understand how we form our reality. Most people are open to the idea in a limited sense. For example, in conventional terms, if you put to someone the idea of getting a better-paid job and subsequently enjoying an enhanced standard of living, as an instance of a person creating the new reality of greater wealth, then I am sure most people would agree this is a situation where a person can create their reality.

However, we create ALL our reality. That means every individual creates his or her own reality. No-one co-creates with anyone. We are the very definition of Self Determination. But as yet very few individuals hold an objective understanding of that fact and it is having that objective understanding, which makes all the difference

This is interesting.  Would you say, however, that people close to you strongly influence the reality you create, unless you resist that influence?  Also, the Common Consensus Reality of the physical world strongly influences you as well?  You accept a lot of its conclusions, unconsciously, like gravity, etc?
So its not a question of co-creation, simply of major influences.

[Telos]

Frank, I don't want to delay your next post regarding subjective reality, but I can't help but ask you this next question.

What is the significance of mathematics, science, and technology?

Just a few hundred years ago, it was not "conventional" to use mathematics to describe the workings of the physical universe. And a couple thousand years before that, it was not conventional to use math for financial purposes or for engineering. Likewise, a few hundred years ago, it was not conventional to use science as a means of making predictions about the universe.

Since then, science and mathematics have not waned, and only increased their power as methodologies for serving the creative needs of people.

We are not speaking right now through a telepathic link, but through an intricate net of computers that have been causally programmed - for the purpose of facilitating our needs for creating discourse.

Frank, is it worth it to study math and science for the purpose of creating reality? Or are those the "old way?"

[Frank]

"This is interesting. Would you say, however, that people close to you strongly influence the reality you create, unless you resist that influence? Also, the Common Consensus Reality of the physical world strongly influences you as well? You accept a lot of its conclusions, unconsciously, like gravity, etc? So its not a question of co-creation, simply of major influences."

RM:

It is essential to understand that we do not co-create. We create our reality by use of our perception. Our perception is a tool, if you like, that receives its reality-creating signals that are filtered through whatever belief constructs we happen to subscribe to. Obviously, certain belief constructs, such as gravity, are more influencing than others. So there are obviously influences, but there is no co-creation.

Yours,
Frank

[RenaissanceMan]

Yes, that does make sense.  Thank you, Frank.

[Frank]

Telos:

Mathematics, science and technology are all fairly modern-day belief constructs that we now use to present us with an overview of what we see as our reality. Years ago, you are correct. We chose alternative constructs in order to describe our outward, i.e. objective reality. The further you look back then the more you will see what we call religious constructs coming into play. As a race, we have chosen to progressively drop the more wayward religious stuff, and create what we now see as more sensible and more fitting constructs.

You see, the great thing about modern-day scientific methodology is that, in theory, it holds the promise of searching for the Truth. But many scientists these days merely search for more science. The quest for the Truth, as such, has been thwarted by vested interests. Materialism, monetary power, bigger and more accurate missiles, more powerful killing machines, etc. The problem is, as a race, we have got to get that insane want to kill each other out of the way before we can make any real progress. But that will come in time.  

I think once we do that, the belief construct of mathematics (especially) will begin to play a more significant role in these kinds of topics. This system of reducing events to certain relationships between numbers will serve the creative needs of people for a long while yet. The great thing is, of course, about mathematics, is its infinite adaptability in terms of expression. And that's why I feel mathematics will be around for a good many years.

Yours,
Frank

[beavis]

Physical reality exists only in some paranormal form. It will continue to act like the known laws of physics say until affected by a paranormal force (like Newton said, but about something else), which can only affect it as much as that force is powerful. None of us are powerful enough to do god-like things to physical things, regardless of how much you believe you can. Lack of belief is a bottleneck to the power of most people, but once belief exceeds the next bigger bottleneck (your amount of power), increasing belief more has little effect. My belief in telekinesis often exceeds my power.

[Gandalf]

Telos:

I once heard somenone say (again on an anthropology course when you really get to see the relative nature of different social belief structures), that 'even if 'science' is another belief sytem, along with all the others we have talked about, I would  choose science as a belief system over any other.. any time any where!'


Its definatly the best, because as Frank says it is the only 'belief system' that, through its methodology, can offer the *potential* for discovering Truth about our universe and our reality, our local one and our greater one. But this can only happen if scientists get out of the endless loop of bowing to peer pressure and the rotting core eating away at science nowadays, caused by research aimed at coming to certain conclusions purely to please funding bodies.

The way ahead is to use scientific approach but in new ways. I would say that Monroe is an excellent example of how a scentific yet open minded approach can work wonders.
If we really did all adopt such an approach that was scientific in methodology yet also placed the highest priority on individual experience in order to fully understand the implications of whats being researched, then I would say yes, this 'new science' IS the way forward.

Doug

[Telos]

Is it fair to say that the science of self-Determination is a subjective science in terms of direction (inward), but objective in the sense that it is a study guided by reason (instead of predominance by passion or emotion)?

Whereas the physical sciences we know of now are objective in both direction and guidance (lacking emotion in both)? So, that is the problem with modern science... it lacks emotion in directional purpose? Because it got carried away when it saw how successful it was to lack emotion in guidance?

You said in another thread, Frank, that "objectively viewing subjective reality" has a kind of emotional distance (I don't remember the exact words... I'm pretty sure MajorTom was there). I have also been trying to read up on your old threads to gain more context... you used to speak about how you spent a lot of time in "Training Grounds," which were not really objective realities but were entirely subjective realities instantly created by your immediate fears or desires. You said you could pass beyond the Training Grounds by means of mild curiosity - or, as I take it to mean, a reservation of the emotions, which is one of the definitions of objectivity.

Sorry to quote the dictionary again, but I'm just trying to let you know where I'm coming from.

ob·jec·tive adj.

1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3. a) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. (See Synonyms at "fair.") b) Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

So when you say "objective viewing of subjective reality," you mean emotionally reserved viewing of inner reality? (Aside from another definition, like a material viewing of inner reality, or existential viewing of inner reality?)

[Edit: "Belief contstruct" seems to me to be intimately entwined with emotion. We often believe things because we feel a special bond with them. And when we believe in things we have feelings when those beliefs are affirmed (positive) as well as when they are intruded (negative). If belief constructs and feelings are so connected, then emotional discipline brings  cognizance of reality creation, and mastery of self-Determination.]

[Another Edit: I guess the crux of this post is just asking... where does emotion fit in?]

[RenaissanceMan]

Beavis writes:

Physical reality exists only in some paranormal form. It will continue to act like the known laws of physics say until affected by a paranormal force (like Newton said, but about something else), which can only affect it as much as that force is powerful. None of us are powerful enough to do god-like things to physical things, regardless of how much you believe you can. Lack of belief is a bottleneck to the power of most people, but once belief exceeds the next bigger bottleneck (your amount of power), increasing belief more has little effect. My belief in telekinesis often exceeds my power.

Unless the amount of power you have is itself based on a belief (as in a belief of your own limitations), albeit further entrenched, more unconscious.

[Telos]

I think I've just answered my own question ("where does emotion fit in?). Although I'd like to confirm it with you guys.

Emotion becomes serene and stoically calmer after a realization that the world is "just," allowing one a more lucid role in self-determination. Since social justice is a core concept, there is no difference between just and unjust. But since we are always creating our reality, every consequence follows necessarily from our intentions and is therefore justly deserved. Even though "just" connotes that there is something out there which is unjust, there in fact isn't, so you are espousing the basics of the just-world hypothesis, that absolutely everything is just. And we need acceptance of this. Correct?

[beavis]

Unless the amount of power you have is itself based on a belief (as in a belief of your own limitations), albeit further entrenched, more unconscious.

The first step towards almost anything is believing it will happen. If you dont believe you can outrun the cops, you probably wont try when blue lights follow you. If you dont believe you can walk the last half of a tightrope (high in the air) you'd probably freak out and fall. Belief is a bottleneck if you dont believe you can do those things, but if you believe it a lot, your car and balance limit you. It wouldnt matter if you believed you could outrun the cops more. Your legal-on-the-street car still wont go 200 miles per hour. Paranormal things are easier to affect by your mental state, but that does not mean it has no limits.