Duality Dilemma:

[Beth]

This topic is addressed to everyone, for everyone here probably has a stake in this issue.

When attempting to describe the experiences that we are all discussing in this forum, so many of the details not only seem--but feel--like they are occuring outside of us.  This immediately creates the impression upon our minds that we are traveling outside of ourselves.  When, however, we realize that most people around us are totally oblivious to this kind of activity, then the mind is more accepting of the fact that it could all actually be happening within each of us.

Now, when attempting to understand the experiences that we are all discussing, there is more than one theory being presented.  There is a lot to be said for the theories that deal with out-there, for it cannot help but resonate truth, and yet it also makes a lot of sense that somehow it is all happening within us: this resonates as well, but we need to be very careful to avoid solipsism.

I would like to really discuss the "in's and out's" of this problem of subjectivity/objectivity.  Take for example Frank's theory: Death is the objective translation of the subjective action of a person permanently shifting their Primary Focus from Focus 1 to Focus 3 of consciousness.

While this certainly sounds reasonable and definately resonates, there are certain problems inherent with this claim, primarily:

1) If everything is happening within my own mind, then who exists that can even make a subjective decision except just me? There has to be more than just my mind/my subjectivity if there really are other people's subjective actions that I can objectively witness, e.g., as their death.  

This philosophical conundrum has been debated for centuries now (most often in theology) and there are actually a lot of situations that can be discussed within this realm of thought.  I think it is most germane to all of the discussions on this forum, however, and therefore worthy of our intellectual investigation.

So, what are your opinions on this topic?

Peace,
Beth

p.s. this topic has probably already been discussed in previous threads, but I would like to re-open the issue!  It never hurts to re-visit topics a new sometimes!

[Frank]

Beth:

I just need to establish that when I give that definition of death then I am taking about the subjective/objective in terms of translation of energy. Not in terms of our awareness in the viewing of events. And it's not my theory, that is actually what happens. Anyone can prove it for themselves by projecting there, which is why I (for one) am trying to teach people how to to do it.

I do understand that this type of debate has been raging in the subject of theology. But this is Astral Consciousness. Here we tend to get on and do it rather than debate quotes from books printed x-thousand years ago. Here we are more into the nitty-gritty doing, you could say. In fact, thinking about it, this is more of a Spiritual discussion/debating issue as opposed to actual techniques and methods and such, so I'll shift it to a more appropriate section.

Yours,
Frank

[Beth]

Dear Frank,

You are a moderator of the Astral Consciousness Section, so I guess it is within your power to move my thread wherever you see fit...however...

If we, as the experiencers, cannot come up with a language through which we can discuss these things logically and rationally, then we can do all the way into perpetuity, but will continue to remain ignorant of the knowledge behind what is actually going on.  And, this will make us all look like 'self-proclaimed mystics' or 'screwballs' to the world at large.  I think our experiences deserve much more than that, but it is up to us to develop the dialogue that will facilitate that knowledge.

I have been experiencing the astral for over ten years, and I am at the point where I must understand my experience in rational terms.  So, for me, at my level of experience, this is a crucial part of "the nitty gritty" of my experience.  

By your moving my thread, you have just 'moved my questions' out of the realm of 'your teaching' which attempts to move those questions 'out of the realm of experience' and into the realm of 'spirituality/philosophy'.  

That kind of 'censorship' is exactly what 'Church Theology' has been doing for centuries to 'deal with' the same experiences we are all having and the questions that arise from those experiences: Out of sight...out of mind.  

I am seeking a logical/rational/scientific explanation here, but if you want to separate 'the doing' from the 'discussion of how and what' it is we are 'doing'...then that is not scientific exploration, that is actually mysticism at its best.

Truly,
Beth

[Shinobi]

...

[Beth]

Dear Shinobi,

Thanks for jumping in!!!

I quite agree that 'out-there' and 'within' are not necessarily mutally exclusive--but how do we talk about that?  All of these models can serve to help us understand what it going on here, like for example, if the 'mind split' theory is somewhat correct, then "I" can be both places at once.  I have always liked this idea, but it too has some problems.  

But within just about all the models that I have been exposed to, the issue of subjectivity/objectivity is a real booger.  I could try to explain it like this:

Within 'me' there is both a subjective and objective aspect, that can function 'subjectively' as both a subjective entity and an objective entity within both the subjectively/objective physical plane and the subjectively/objective astral plane. In other words, "I" in my astral form can 'subjectively' apprehend 'myself' as an 'objective physical entity', all the while apprehending 'myself' 'subjectively' as I move about in an 'objectively subjective astral world."  With a bit of dual awareness, I can also "subjectively" experience the "objective" movements of my astral form within the astral plane.

Now this totally makes sense to me, for I am while I type, applying this to my various experiences...but someone else reading this who has not experienced the same things may well respond with "WHAT?  That lady is nuts! That makes no sense whatsoever!!"

The very terms "subjective" and "objective" are very loaded terms just when it comes to experiencing the physical world! And are that much more loaded when we apply it to our experiences of the astral.  

This whole issue seems to demand a "relative point of reference."  If so, then...(I will see if I can set this up correctly!) it may be expounded upon something like this:

As I lay down to rest it appears to be a no brainer that "I" am the subjective element within the objective reality of my room, my bed, and even to my cat.  Here, my relative point of reference is easily understood so subjectivity and objectivity are pretty easy to understand.  

As I am experiencing the astral, however, I feel as though "I" am still subjectively experiencing an objective reality. But even within this aspect, subjectivity and objectivity are still useful terms as my relative point of reference is in the same plane of existence.  

But, when "I return" or "awaken" my relative point of reference has changed dramatically:  I am now subjectively recalling 'myself' in the astral but as an 'objective entity' to 'my subjective self', rather than with the same 'astral subjectivity' as before.  Add to this problem, other people, events, and activities, and you really find yourself in a subject/object mess!

Now, because there have been times when I have been traversing the astral and I have had a brief moment of being able to, for example, feel the design on my pillowcase with my fingertip all the while still being active on the astral, my ability to 'subjectively experience' has been enlarged to do so simultaneously in two seemingly separate realities.

This tells me that "I" am actually a "subjective entity" in both places at the same time.  But -- by definition, this cannot actually be the case, for "subjectivity" is of 'one entity' not 'two'.  One of those 'entities' must be an objective entity to the other.  But which one am "I"??

If this makes sense to anyone else, then as you can see, the terms "subjectivity/objectivity" are very tricky in these contexts!

To avoid the solipsism that would easily reconcile this problem, the "one universal mind with many awarenesses" model works to an extent, but when the details are singularily examined, this model too tends to fall apart (or at least our ability to conceive of it anyway.)

So, what to do?  I tend to think we need new words that will encapsulate the multiple realities involved in AP rather than try and use words that are best suited for 'one' world alone.

But either way, I think this issue is really important to this forum, so does anyone have other ideas or comments?

Beth    

p.s. Solipsism=a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing

[Beth]

Major Tom,

My critique of the use of subjectivity/objectivity in the context that it is being used, is probably a very post-modern/deconstructionist thing to do.  

The limits of language have always gotten in the way of discussing extra-physical or non-physical phenomena, and is why these experiences are most often relagated into 'mystical' categories.  This also led to Wiggenstein's "pass over in silence" quote that many 'mystics' grabbed onto as their 'banner of verification' if you will.

But...if we (and Frank specifically) are going to seek out/claim that there is a scientific way of approaching and understanding Astral phenomena, then we must use a language that 'works'.  It is my contention that the words "subjectivity" and "objectivity" only work in discreet elements of his model, but when the model is looked at as a whole, the language becomes unstable.

So, if we (or Frank) do not come up with the language that can adequately cover the elements of such a 'science' then discerning intelligent minds will have to, at some point, be forced to cross a linguistic bridge that is actually a slippery slope.

If someone can show me that I am 'all wet' then please do, for I am just trying to logically account for my own experiences and be able to put that logic into words.

 Beth