Alternatives to "Experiential Reality"

[Lord_Viskey]

Hi folks. Recently I submitted a response to a particular forum topic that others had originated (spcfc: "Non-Dualism Does Not exist") & someone responded to my comment with what I felt was an inappropriately venomous counter statement - to which I take no offense.

However, the topic, being so meaningful to me, my opinion offered as something so serviceable, & the retort seemingly "so out of place" that I left the forum with more than a reasonable amount of "perceivable shame" for feeling like "I stuck my nose in where it didn't belong."

I am in my "later" part of life, and have never had it in me to deliberately offend anyone with whom I attempt to converse. Often my approach may seem abrupt, brash, or somehow (beyond my own ability to see it) as "rude". For this pseudo-appearance, I apologize, but I wish to be emphatic at this moment that I am only merely attempting to obtain as much "objective" connection to "infinite" knowledge as one can hope to obtain while I still breathe ... It is my desire, and my life long pursuit, knowing full well that one cannot even hope to "scratch the surface" of the topic. Precisely, because it is incomprehensible, is the reason I thirst for everyone else's perspective ... for this much I know : "all things are connected."

I am fascinated by the reality of that truth, yet more importantly, I want to know : "how do your 'beautiful' opinions connect to my fragmentary ones?" ... That's all it has ever been to me.

So, this is why I want to originate a new conversation here and now; hopefully one without assaults upon any other's self esteem through harsh words or manipulative commentary & emphatically without an atmosphere of "elitism" where only "special" contributors are allowed - I have always, just wanted a purely "beautiful" & "meaningful" conversation. And this is one that I would like to "observe" how it progresses through our various perceptions.

Yet, again I feel I must apologize if the subject matter has been buried in the "annals of this SF's time" - so much so, that it may be a redundant one. Perhaps you can look at this question as a new oportunity to bring up previously printed thoughts, a chance to enhance them even further, or new visitors to post some of their own and enliven the whole topic all over again.

So, here is what I ask:

Who here believes that consciousness continues after physical life?

Of you, how do you (personally) rationalize the difference between "that" state of continuum and this state, which is identified as "experiential reality"?

Please note that while my inflection is upon the term "experiential reality" - it must also be reasonable to assume that while those who have "coined" that phrase, those who speak of it, and typically attribute it to only "physical" reality, that anything "non-physical" should be "experiential" as well - how would you yourself describe your thoughts on that "alternative" experiential reality?

Can you describe the difference between your "subjective" sensing of it and knowing of its complimentary counterpart we often refer to as "objectifying" it (typically for the purpose of communicating about it).

Here's hoping every respondent gives it deep thought before they post an answer. Some may take it so much "for granted" - due to their own level of development - that innocuous things are "too absurd" to even address. I hope you are enabled to speak about these little innuendos without adding an "arrogant" aire to it - like I apparently seem to be doing from time to time. Thank-you in advance for your considerations...

Hello Lord Viskey,

Nice to read you for the first time.

From my side there is no belief that consciousness continues after physical life. It is to me simply a reality, not a belief anymore.

How can this reality/consciousness be shared with those caught only in the physical life is the questions that comes up to me? And I do have this belief that reality/consciousness can be shared on this physical plane.

Regards,

[inavalan]

This might turn into an interesting conversation, but from your post I'm not sure what your position is, and what you're asking for.

I never heard the formulation "Experiential Reality".

[Lord_Viskey]

Hello to each of you. For the sake of definitions in common language, "Experiential Reality" is the reality of which we typically sense with our five common senses. It is invariably validated by the fact that it is something tangible and is usually contrasted to anything else that would otherwise be an "idealized" method of seeing [reality] - as in "sensed" but not "provable" in any other method; there is no other "sensual" sort of relationship to it except exclusively through "brain functions concurrent with sensory organs".



In response to Legrand, I was curious to understand what the dynamic was that caused you chose the words : "not a belief anymore." I assume you are talking about the difference between a "now moment" and a "then moment" from the perspective of this moment in the conversation.

While the logic is obvious for your other quote: "And I do have this belief that reality/consciousness can be shared on this physical plane.." there can be no argument. However, I'd like to address the first part by saying that "reality/consciousness has always been 'attempted' to be shared through symbols, language & interpretations - i.e.: "communication".
"Communication" therefore, is not the "Knowledge" itself - it is merely a chosen method we use to point to that knowledge which we have gleaned throughout our life & endeavors.



For Invalan, I'd like to respond that I hope it is interesting to hear from others too.

I find it actually "intriguing" that you use an introduction to conversation that I often use too : "...I'm not sure what your position is..." For me this is owed to the fact that if my philosophy is so much different from another's, I certainly wish to avoid arguing over semantics. I always have much rather preferred to hone my comments in a spirit that there is "similarity" - even in apparent "dissimilarity", and that is where I try to focus my self education.

My position is that there is a reality that can be experienced beyond what others have called "experiential", but we get incessantly caught up in the limitations of definition via physical (concrete) methods of identifying it in any manner of terms through the use of elimination & reductionism... somehow we tend to negate the subjectivity of all its possible sensations by reducing this to nothing more than "brain chemistry" - which I believe is quite valid, but only to a point.

I guess that what I'm asking for is not so much "how" - but "to what" have people's minds opened up to during this considerably "alternative" way of perception. I lead off this thread by alluding to my penchant for "objectifying" that which is - (and typically "will be" "subjectively" experienced). I was curious that if these immersions into thought could be considered as associable to divinity (our consciously attempted relationship to it) in some way, those symbols of a divine sensation was what I was hoping others might expand upon.

This is my way of not actually "being with you" when you commune in meditation, but never-the-less attempting to share the sensations had by others. (hoping my self invitation is not an intrusion into that which may or may not be too personal for one to choose to share with this "unidentifiable" stranger on the other end of the post).

[inavalan]

My experience suggests that there isn't a reality that is independent of us, and that we can perceive (experience). This reality is like the reality in our dreams. Both are created by our subconscious.

There are, probably, an infinite number of realities, each based on their own set of root assumptions. As our awareness focuses into one of them, our perception of that reality is filtered by that specific set of root assumptions.

Originally Posted by Lord_Viskey

Hello to each of you. For the sake of definitions in common language, "Experiential Reality" is the reality of which we typically sense with our five common senses. It is invariably validated by the fact that it is something tangible and is usually contrasted to anything else that would otherwise be an "idealized" method of seeing [reality] - as in "sensed" but not "provable" in any other method; there is no other "sensual" sort of relationship to it except exclusively through "brain functions concurrent with sensory organs".

In response to Legrand, I was curious to understand what the dynamic was that caused you chose the words : "not a belief anymore." I assume you are talking about the difference between a "now moment" and a "then moment" from the perspective of this moment in the conversation.

Hello Lord Viskey,

The dynamic is very simple. So many lifetimes lived. Each lifetime it’s the same story. Coming back into experimential reality as a newborn one forgets everything. And then remembers again. It’s the now and then moment.

Same thing can be said to append breath after breath, pulsation after pulsation.

Originally Posted by Lord_Viskey

While the logic is obvious for your other quote: "And I do have this belief that reality/consciousness can be shared on this physical plane.." there can be no argument. However, I'd like to address the first part by saying that "reality/consciousness has always been 'attempted' to be shared through symbols, language & interpretations - i.e.: "communication".
"Communication" therefore, is not the "Knowledge" itself - it is merely a chosen method we use to point to that knowledge which we have gleaned throughout our life & endeavors.

Yes, exactly communication is not Knowledge itself. But how else can Knowledge be infused in the sleeping inertial matter?

Regards,

[Lord_Viskey]

I agree with Invalan, that "there isn't a reality independent of us" as I feel this is defined in the sense that we live in an "eternal now" moment, but with the linearity that a temporal universe offers us, that moment is ever evolving. The nifty thing (to me) is that aside from - or perhaps, even better to say "within - our subconscious thoughts, we have an ability to make conscious "constructs" of our perceptions through ideas and inspirations and such ... as such, deeper and meaningful symbols are drawn by our mind's abilities to do so from a subconsciously available resource available to all... it's nifty, even if this is supposed to be the illusory side of reality.


What Legrand says brings to mind a passage I once read in a book called "The God Theory" (in reference to another writing : "Conversations With God") where it was said "...that you cannot experience yourself as what you are until you encounter what you are not ... in a sense, you have to first "not be" in order to be. Of course, there is no way for you to not be who or what you are ... so you did the next best thing. You caused yourself to forget Who You Really are.... Upon entering the physical universe, you relinquish your remembrance of yourself. This allows you to choose to be who you are, rather than simply wake up in the castle so to speak..."



The practicality of all this seems to be sensibly stated. there seems to always be an infinite cycling between what is and what was - between being in the physical, and not being in the physical. In that visionary comment, I can understand the meaning of the Ouroborous" - (the serpent that eats its tail) ... what was, has to be erased; has to be passed beyond, so that the "new" can exist. In a continuum of infinity where its easy to get lost in the variations. For me, this is to say that every entity has a simultaneous ability with all other's, to experience reality in their own unique and particular way.

While it is easy to ascertain the "normal" place for this to occur, is within the physical realm, it seems to also give a reason why few can remember past lives or piece together an explainable dialog about where, how, or why, we mentally experience the euphoria ... doesn't stop me from trying to, though.

What I wonder is : "if we cannot (or should not) pick our own time to pass beyond physicalness, what sort of 'experiential reality' would we linger within prior to returning to the physical if we had to do something else, or had to improve upon something from a preceding life... How different would you envision that being from the physicalness we know now and the "complete non-physicalness after this? (assuming this is not going to be an issue of punishment of any kind)

[inavalan]

I have two favorite comparisons when I try to explain others the model of the wider reality I have.

One: My inner-self looks at the awake-me, as the awake-me looks at the dream-me.

Two: Physical-reality is like a multi-player virtual simulation / game: the framework / core software is our physical reality; the inner-self is a player; the subconscious is the individual player software, that connects the player to the game; our egos are the game's characters.

We have no idea who we are (or who we were before joining this round of the game) because the player-we got engrossed in the game that we joined. So engrossed that now we identify with the characters we handle. It is like reading a book, and getting so absorbed by it that we forget about or "real" selves. It isn't only the quality of the plot, the brainwashing we call child rearing, education, science, etc..

[Lord_Viskey]

"Model of The Wider Reality" ... Your second model seems similar to how modern theoretical physicists look upon our matterverse - sans the "video game" aspect somewhat. This ... sort of ... "projection of the universe from higher dimensions" sort of thing, I guess, seems to make our consciousness too concrete or something like that... I struggle with accepting it - but everyone has a model right ?

Your first model has an intriguing aire to it. I view my "inner self" (Lord Viskey) awaiting the activities of the "conscious/awake me" to come to an end, so the "dream state me" can finally wake up from the fog of an earth bound illusion, attach itself to the "consciousness of my soul" and finally merge into the one unitary "entity" whose name I use for the pseudonym here in this forum... Yet, it's the placement of my ability to perceive at all, that I like to step out from - beyond even "my self", rendering it "less important" than the whole "model of reality" that I'd rather perceive.

My model (#1) of the wider reality - (sans my self identity) - keeps appearing as if in the shape of a diamond ring ... I don't like the "circular-ness" of this image, but symbols are only a "crude" representation of reality anyway. I fully understand why the "diamond" is at the opposite end of the band... This "imagining" of a ring represents an Infinite intelligence with an ability to be as "the fuzziness of a wave form" at the diamond "clump". That clump (which has nothing to do with the "hardness" of a diamond - but , perhaps, more with the "sparkly attraction" to a complete answer to the mysteries of reality; the clump merely the pool of resources), represents an infinite resource from which all things tangible or not, are placed with care at the farthest expanse away from its infinite possibilities - the "band". The band represents the solid/manifest "outcome" - a particle universe - from the arrangement of any particular group of components at the "fuzzy" end, in order to create the realm in which we are physically familiar, temporally mature, and dwell within.

Model (#2) of my wider reality has more to do with a sentient "existence" within the fuzzy, unshapened totality of infinite possibilities (i.e.: the "Absolute"). Between our sentient "point" (ego) and the Absolute, all physical life exists within the "bubble/sphere" of a material universe, itself "wept" out into solidity within the intelligence that had designed it. Yet, even as we may imagine ourselves as a point with an ego/identity, we can still move deeper and deeper inward to find that we can access/"approach" this Absolute from that direction too (the eternal "cyclic dynamic" may not care how we approach it - so long as we must do so).

Just like the diamond ring image, the course/path through reality for sentience occurs along an apparently predefined course. Around the whole band, is just as practical as observing outward from a perspective within the universe, or inward through a meditative state of consciousness. I find an interesting paradox for my own sentience within these models - something Zen masters would no doubt have already overcome, (but not I) - It seems no matter what, every sentient creature moves in a "forward" direction as it evolves. The peculiarity to my effort for understanding, as I flow through the motions of sentient thought, the direction we project ourselves in may have something to do with whether we perceive everything as an object, or we subjectively experience it, giving nothing an identity, as if with total immersion.

Studying the minutia of an "Infinite collective" ... just because its there. That's me in a nutshell, I guess...

[Busby]

Originally Posted by Lord_Viskey

Hi folks. Recently I submitted a response to a particular forum topic that others had originated (spcfc: "Non-Dualism Does Not exist") & someone responded to my comment with what I felt was an inappropriately venomous counter statement - to which I take no offense.

However, the topic, being so meaningful to me, my opinion offered as something so serviceable, & the retort seemingly "so out of place" that I left the forum with more than a reasonable amount of "perceivable shame" for feeling like "I stuck my nose in where it didn't belong."

I am in my "later" part of life, and have never had it in me to deliberately offend anyone with whom I attempt to converse. Often my approach may seem abrupt, brash, or somehow (beyond my own ability to see it) as "rude". For this pseudo-appearance, I apologize, but I wish to be emphatic at this moment that I am only merely attempting to obtain as much "objective" connection to "infinite" knowledge as one can hope to obtain while I still breathe ... It is my desire, and my life long pursuit, knowing full well that one cannot even hope to "scratch the surface" of the topic. Precisely, because it is incomprehensible, is the reason I thirst for everyone else's perspective ... for this much I know : "all things are connected."

I am fascinated by the reality of that truth, yet more importantly, I want to know : "how do your 'beautiful' opinions connect to my fragmentary ones?" ... That's all it has ever been to me.

So, this is why I want to originate a new conversation here and now; hopefully one without assaults upon any other's self esteem through harsh words or manipulative commentary & emphatically without an atmosphere of "elitism" where only "special" contributors are allowed - I have always, just wanted a purely "beautiful" & "meaningful" conversation. And this is one that I would like to "observe" how it progresses through our various perceptions.

Yet, again I feel I must apologize if the subject matter has been buried in the "annals of this SF's time" - so much so, that it may be a redundant one. Perhaps you can look at this question as a new oportunity to bring up previously printed thoughts, a chance to enhance them even further, or new visitors to post some of their own and enliven the whole topic all over again.

So, here is what I ask:

Who here believes that consciousness continues after physical life?

Of you, how do you (personally) rationalize the difference between "that" state of continuum and this state, which is identified as "experiential reality"?

Please note that while my inflection is upon the term "experiential reality" - it must also be reasonable to assume that while those who have "coined" that phrase, those who speak of it, and typically attribute it to only "physical" reality, that anything "non-physical" should be "experiential" as well - how would you yourself describe your thoughts on that "alternative" experiential reality?

Can you describe the difference between your "subjective" sensing of it and knowing of its complimentary counterpart we often refer to as "objectifying" it (typically for the purpose of communicating about it).

Here's hoping every respondent gives it deep thought before they post an answer. Some may take it so much "for granted" - due to their own level of development - that innocuous things are "too absurd" to even address. I hope you are enabled to speak about these little innuendos without adding an "arrogant" aire to it - like I apparently seem to be doing from time to time. Thank-you in advance for your considerations...

Thank you Lord Viskey for a seldom but profound honesty.

I do (I think) understand your position or situation. Often I despair at the furrow in which different belief systems have landed. It's quite chilling to see how words without defined meaning are passed on from generation to generation without the slightest intention on anyone's part to really get down to thinking or investigating what is going on.

In this thing we call the world there are so many things which desperately need an explanation but which are continuously pushed aside simply because it would upset the whole system (of settled beliefs) if these instances were allowed to be spoken of. The world is filled with compartments or filing systems into which everything is placed according to the labels we have given things in order to keep (in our eyes) a semblance of control.

We badly need a breakthrough - one which we have been talking about for centuries but has never appeared. Plenty of false alarms though.
I think your 'experiential reality' is probably the same as my 'empirical observations' a series of personal intrusions into some sort of accompanying living and intelligent force - one which lies well away from any religious or divine reality.

You ask who believes that consciousness continues after physical death, Legrand (above) tells us that he doesn't believe it - he doesn't need to, he knows it.

I do too. Sixteen times within my long life I have seen (I don't think 'been given') a glimpse of an explanation to this fascinating mystery.

Maybe (not wanting to be arrogant) there is nothing other than imagination.