Fantasy World

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

If you travel to Japan you might see an interesting cultural phenonenon: middle age well-to-do business men spending a inordinate (in my opinion) amount time and money buying anime comics and toys (which are everywhere). To a Western mind this seems very unusual and at times when considering all the peculiar idiosyncrasies of this culture I even wonder if modern Japanese culture is in the middle of mass psychosis. I am not saying that you cannot find such escapism in the West, there is plenty of it here, as well, from Wiccan godessess who talk to the trees in their backyard, to hardcore Trekkies, to religious head-laying tongue-speaking fanatics, to sugarcoated reality everyone sees on tv everyday. But how important is fantasy to psychological well-being? Or should I say, just how damaging is reality to a mind?
They teach prisoners of war and those who are subjected to sensory deprivation, for example, to “find their happy place” in order, I assume, to forestall or prevent a complete nervous breakdown of the mind. All over the world children are told fairy tales, either in the form of books, stories, or Disney cartoons, or are told fictinal explanations to natural phenomena.

Does this then imply that reality is a stressful thing for a child and can damage its psyche if not buffered against with make-believe stories? And what of adults? Or should I say, and what of adults under normal, everyday circumstances?
It is clear to me that fantasy world provides a buffer against reality that might be otherwise psychologically damaging to the psyche. What is not clear to me is when the use of fantasy is overused, or is unwarranted. In the case of the Japanese businessman: is his reality so harsh as to warrant such flights of fantasy to preserve his psychological well-being? An even better question, is the harshness(or stressfullness) of his reality equivalent to the degree of his fantasy? And on the flipside, can the degree of fantasy tell us about the harshness (whether real or perceived) of the reality of the individual?

What I am getting at is: can we simply live and work and think in reality? Wouldn’t a world be a better place if all people actually functioned in reality? Should we make more effort in bridging the gap between the inner world and the outer world? Because I see that this gap getting bigger and bigger, as if people are pushing away against reality.
And for those with "creativity"argument , can’t we be creative and real at the same time?

2

I like this. But there’s a problem in using general examples. Who’s to say that these Japanese businessmen aren’t being creative and real at the same time? Do you have information that suggests otherwise?

3

I think my examples were specific enough.

How is it based in reality? You are spending your time (months or even years) withdrawing from reality and following a life of a fictional character. You are not a hired assassin in feudal Japan avenging your family honor and battling evil spirits. You are not a secret agent in a futuristic space age, traveling through space in a research space shuttle. These characters do not exist in real life. It is a fantasy. Creativity based on reality uses X that actually exist and applying them to various variables that are also based in reality, not reading about the drama of teenage vampires and orphaned wizards. The only worthy creativity I see here is that of author and publisher managing to solicit large amounts of money from public by appealing to psychological need to escape reality and then successfully flaming the commercial frenzy.

4

Why is that worthy?

Hey, I think it’s weird too. But you’re saying more than that - you’re saying it’s psychotic - it’s “mass psychosis”. Maybe it is, but if it is it means that these people have lost touch with reality and actually believe they are characters in these comic books or something. How is this not just a difference in taste, is what I’m asking. What is “real”? Do you watch tv? Is that psychotic?

5

I see withdrawing into the fantasy world as regressive behavior, an opposite of going forth into reality (exploring the real world).

But they have to. In order to “enjoy” it, you have to temporarily suspend reality. You know that vampires do not exist, but you must allow yourself to believe that they do if you want to experience the fantasy. In essence, you have to push away from reality for a time being and immerse yourself in what is not real.
Another question would be, given a choice, why would you want to experience fantasy instead of experiencing reality.

What is “imaginary” then, and what is its relationship to reality? I think its more than just a matter of taste. I see a big difference between picking up a book about the native plant species in your area and an encyclopedia of fantastical creatures. One deals with things that actually exist in external world, the other deals with imagined world, a world that does not exist beyond the pages of the book.

Yes.

[/quote]
Yes, possibly so.

6

Oh, ok. You’re being kind of radical in your views here. That’s fine by me. Like I originally said, I like this way of thinking. I’m only reacting to the judgementalness I thought I saw in it.

7

We can do nothing but.
To what ‘reality’ do you refer? The one (bit of one) that you perceive?

Again, same response. Who is to define ‘reality’ (Perspective) for others? You? You to call the reality of another, ‘fantasy’?

There is no gap. It is a matter of Perspective to imagine one. You dream at night, you dream during the day, do you imagine the simple state of wakefulness as some magical border between ‘worlds’?
“As the sun obscures the stars by day, so wakefulness obscures the fact that you are still dreaming!”

Whatever anyone perceives, is ‘reality’; only ‘complete’ as the sum-total of all perceptions.
There is no ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ but in your thoughts. All views of The Universe are features of the complete Universe. Even what you egoically call ‘fantasy’.
‘Reality’ is a bit more that that tiny ‘feature’ that you perceive!

We do not ‘create’ anything. We perceive. The Universe/Reality is that which we perceive, as we perceive it.
Every Perspective is ‘reality/existence’. There can be no other.

8

Yes, but sometimes we confuse our inner reality with external reality and vest too much of our attention in a fantasy world.

I am talking about external reality, the reality that exists without greedy roaming hobbits, space tribbles, or flying tinkerbells.

Many people choose (or are encouraged to) spend time in imaginary worlds rather than in the real external world. Instead of learning about what is actually happening in the physical world that they were born into, they withdraw their attention into imaginary fantastical worlds, worlds whose existence is not supported by external reality.

Really?! I am just imagining the contradiction between the two? So, I can just perceive away a cop giving me a speeding ticket? And if I hold the speeding ticket in my hand and perceive it not being there, there won’t actually be a ticket in my hand? And whatever consequences come from it I can just perceive them away since everything is just a matter of my perspective?

If the sun did not obscure the stars and made it possible to see all things clearly, would you still be here able to say these things? Would you even be?

You are blurring a distinction between external and internal. This is like saying that Middle Earth is just as real as Great Britain.

My topic addresses external reality, not “overall” reality into which you lump everything that exists. Fantasy is an internal world that is in conflict with the external one. It does not exist in the external, corporeal world. This is how fantasy is defined.

Godzilla and King Kong are not part of the animal kingdom of the external, corporeal world; they exist in science fiction books as a fantasy; when I see a Godzilla actually roaming the streets of New York, I will no longer call it a fantasy; it will then become real in the external world. Until then, they exist in a separate “reality”, namely, a fantasy world.

9

There is no difference. There is no ‘external’ reality. There is no evidence, it is a ‘belief’ for which there is no evidence. Nothing exists but our perceptions of existence.

Ain’t no such thing.

Yes.

You don’t ‘perceive away’ anything, you perceive what, for you, is.

You mean the ‘feature’ of ‘reality’ that you perceive as opposed to the features of Reality as perceived by others?

Your ego might be a ‘better place’ if all people actually functioned in (agreed with) your perceptions of ‘reality’.
No, Pandora, the world would not be a “better place” if everyone were just like you. It would be a mean and tiny ‘world’… How much ‘world’ is available to, experienced by, a paramecium? In Reality, it’s a bit more than that, or 'this.

10

I think it’s impossible for a human being not to live in a fantasy world.

We are all delusional, because we believe that the illusions we experience (with the definitions and explanations we have to categorize them) are actually accurate depictions of a “reality” out there (/existing outside our minds). Okay, I don’t believe this, as in I hold this position as it were rational, but I act as if these illusions/interpretations actually are reality, because our social-based languages, cultures and institutions are based on these delusions.

Instead of thinking of this as either
A) giving mind/attention/energy/whatever to a fantasy or
B) giving mind to reality

it is more accurate to think of it as
A) giving mind to a fantasy that makes your life/subjective experiences more bearable (both in the short term and long term) or
B) giving mind to a fantasy that makes your experiences more unbearable (usually both, but at least in the long term - ie extended short-term).

Most of the time, what differentiates (counterproductive/countercontentment) “fantasy” pursuits from (also fantasy) productive/practical/healthy “reality” pursuits is how culturally acceptable an action/mindset is (ie how much or little cultural values/institutions/etc have been tailored to encourage and promote it, and how much environmental acceptance/aid or resistance/danger it will experience).

To avoid confusion, I’m going to explain what I mean by culture (as I will use it below) before I use it.

[i]By “culture” I don’t mean fine art and good manners, I mean explanations (with accompanying value judgements) for phenomenon commonly found/considered in the society (as well as that which may happen less frequently, if the society deems it a threat to the “functional” workings of its system as has managed to minimize the danger).

Setting up an allegory:
An individual’s observable actions (the habitual workings of the body) express and follow the individual’s mind/thoughts/concerns/beliefs (assuming the body is acting according to conscious subjective considerations), and the mind is slightly altered in order to consistently produce actions (of the body) that minimize the mind’s discomfort – discomfort for the mind is/results from deeming (something in) the environment “bad”, leading to a chain-reaction of (being in conflict with/not accepting) “bad” environments.

The problem with this is that the mind seeks stability. Cognitive dissonance, which produces anxiety, is the result of the mind experiencing seemingly conflicting thoughts/actions/values/etc at once. The mind needs to feel assured that a certain situation or action is right or wrong before it can act and move on (secure with its ability to handle future situations). As a result of this need for consistency, the mind organizes all of its actions/thoughts according to certain contexts (which result from an overall, consistent judgement/value of habitual actions/thoughts).

The allergory:
If a society (all its observable phenomenon – streets, buildings, movement of people interacting and doing certain things, its clean water source, level of crime, police force, pollution, greenery, etc) is the body, culture is the mind (conscious(ness)) – the beliefs, values, concerns, plans, etc. [/i]

The more culture (fueling/guiding/directing a group of people) – the more values and expectations resulting in more “right” behaviors that “ought” to be performed, the more specific/limited/restricted an individual’s actions (and thus, their “practical”/“good” mind/thoughts/conscious self) become.

It is one thing for a small tribe with a strong tradition/solid upbringing (secure socialization process) to live the only possible existence they know the only way they know in the only world they know (in this case their behavior may be very restricted, but in most cases there isn’t much of an alternative/other possiblity to compare that to, so it isn’t experienced as a restriction, it is experienced as the thing one does), it is another (an affect of writing, the printing press, mass media, multiculturalism and the internet) when one is exposed to a massive amount of information/words/concepts that one hasn’t seen or experienced firsthand, constructing in the mind the potential (and curse) to imagine a limitless amount of possibilities (as well as arguments and points of view that can crumble the columns on which the “righteousness” of one’s actions lie).

The well-to-do businessman is making his money and, by the culture’s standards, successful, but hour after hour day in and day out he’s forcing his mind and body to “stay on task” and “move forward” towards something completely opposed to who he is. He’s “successful”, but for (at least) 40-50 hours of his week, (at least) around 30-40% of his waking life, he’s unhappy, conflicted and tired of not (taking advantage of his existence and) living his life by being himself as he could he.

So when he’s not working he fulfills this need (to explore what life has to offer, to go on an adventure, or to get excited/motivated about something, or be silly or spontaneous or whatever he can’t have/let out due to his job and/or cultural expectations) by getting (oftentimes, way too) into sports (personalizing his team and demonizing the other with/as the source of all his frustrations), obtaining warmth/emotional reward with alcohol, pills, etc, putting oneself in the shoes of a character/situation in movies, on reality tv, in a comic book or manga, whatever.

Most of these “successful” people wouldn’t dare quit their jobs (probably for good reason); some people, with some golden combination of financial wealth and/or traits which may or may not include intelligence, ignorance, antisocial tendencies, charm, creativity, attention-seeking, brownnosing, etc luck into a job (or lack of needing one) with which they can harmoniously and joyfully let out all or most of their natural actions. Most people don’t and won’t have this good fortune, so they have to somehow experience and release those emotions/needs/parts of themselves that they painfully keep under the surface.

People are different, so certain activities and hobbies aren’t going to work for everyone. As long as one’s “therapy” doesn’t stand in the other person’s way, why give a shit, why judge them? They’re just confused, frustrated people who, like all of us, just want to have something to which they can attach themselves and unload all the shit that’s been rotting away their spirits.

The Greeks understood this: People went to the theater to watch/experience (myth-based) tragedies where a “hero” protagonist (who just wanted to do good) suffers from a horrible misfortunate. This (like all myths) is the story of a(ll healthy/empathetic/social) human being(s) frustration in trying to do good but suffering anyway, and by associating/attaching their frustrations with the hero’s, the audience can (healthily) purge their own struggle/conflict-based frustrations in socially/culturally-acceptable manner (that doesn’t damage their relationships/reputation/etc) while still maintaining the value/righteousness/“heroicism” of trying to be a “good” person (defined by/in conforming to one’s culture).

The Jesus myth and its focus in (the Catholic) mass isn’t much different. I understand this isn’t the case for all religion’s practices and myths (including some that are or could be called “Christian”), but mass is pretty much just a Greek-influenced tragedy, with Jesus as the hero who suffers misfortunate/sacrifices himself for mankind (just as most people put up with a lot of shit, and internally suffer because of it, for the sake of honoring (culturally-defined/maintaining) “goodness”/God.

Today with multiculturalism and (the beginning of) Postmodernism (as I see it and its potential), more and more people realize that certain religious myths/figures may not actually exist (as entities outside the mind/imagination of a human being). I find it hard to believe that that many people actually ever did, though. I just don’t think they bothered questioning their church’s myths, because everyone else was going to church and, for the most part, it gave them some peace of mind. I think when theists nowadays try to defend God, or their faith, they are mostly arguing that their idea/feeling of/association with “God”, and what comes from/with that, is “real” to them in that it has provided a base/structure on which they can order/make sense/give meaning to their experiences and lives, comforting them and helping them stay “on track” (in accordance with cultural/societal expectations/necessities).

There are few things that annoy me more than (Richard Dawkins-like) a(nti)theists who just have to militantly “enlighten”/attack the “lunacy” of religions (and their myths). You’ve seen these people, right? The “brights” who proudly state that they only accept and base their worldviews and actions on rationality and logic?

It’s fucking impossible to only act and believe according to logic/rationality. Even the wrongness of rape, murder and the “correct” interpretations of stable “selves” existing through periods of time/change are only “facts”/“truths” for pragmatic reasons (that’s how our mind’s naturally make sense of certain phenomenon, and since we all want to avoid discomfort, we might as well accept these illusions/illogical beliefs as truths). Even an extremely thoughtful, intelligent and (striving to be) ethical person, likely to experience a lot of frustration/anxiety/mild depression here and there due to an inability to reach a logically-stable philosophy to interpret and guide all situations/actions, is going to assume something is right/wrong from time time (because he reached a satisfactory/good enough conclusion in the past), even though there have been many life-experiences/changes in beliefs, values, that may, if explored, show him his past errors.

Humans have to just assume certain (not logically/rationally-demonstrated) beliefs in order to enjoy their lives, so as long as they aren’t fucking with other people’s therapy (like those sophomoric antitheists), realize you do the same thing, in some form or another, and move on.

11

Having set a certain context with my first (very lenghty) post, I feel I can (as briefly as possible) reply to some of your statements, Pandora.

The “Matt” I think myself to be is a fictional character. My family members and friends have their own (interpretation, experience, illusion and delusion of a) “Matt” character. Sure, they can all point to a “body” and agree “That’s Matt”, but I in reality, am not any of these things. All I am (right now) is this trying to decide how to most accurately express an idea with words. I, at this moment, am a passing consideration that this should (or should not) be done, and then it/“I” is gone as soon as it arrives, having given birth to a new “I”/it. “I” (as it will be defined in this sentence) has not yet existed, but will for only a single conscious (of itself and itself only) moment, when it types the period. Now “I” (no longer existing, but it did have/was the following clarification:) will bold that period…but “I”-but not “I”-considered the period may not stand out enough if “I” ("I"s often state themselves to be the body from which they arrive) just bold it. About ten generations of "I"s passed on their lessons, just a little bit at a time, one to another, until the last came to the conclusion that (with this last point) that ought to be enough of this example.

The scientific method can tell us that (our subjective impressions of) something may or may not reliably result from something else, but our impressions of either of these things (or anything, for that matter) is not a reflection of “real life”, as you mean it. All there is (that a mind can know with any total accuracy/realism/authenticity) is that mind’s experience at that moment/the environment it sees. “I” am not a son, nor an American, nor a male, nor an editor, “I” am a temporary conscious moment arising as a result of programs/processes filtering/interpretting/altering stimuli from programs/processes filtering/interpretting/altering stimuli from programs/processes filtering/interpretting/altering stimuli on and on and on all the way back to the beginning of time (or whatever).

An “I” may, at the moment of its existence, equate it ('s consciousness) with (what it interprets to be) a (whole, single) “body”, and even equate it with the tendency of “that body” --a body that actually is not that/the same body in “real life”, even if one or more minds would agree on their name(s) and “personal history” (that neither body actually experienced), because over a period of time the total (configuration/actions of/being of the) earlier “body” had altered a great deal - no digested Big Macs in the bowels, one tooth missing and all the rest slightly tanner than the other body’s, second body has more hair on the cranium and less on the nutsack, the second body’s neurons are wired much differently, as well, considering the first body sat in a freshman orentiation meeting and the other in an office a decade later– to be covered with certain fibers arranged in certain forms in certain colors while the body performs certain kinds of actions in certain locations, all of which can be combined and described as a “businessman”, a noun (nouns are also illusions, and don’t exist in real life, by the way, it would be more accurate to express such a thing as “businessmaning”), but none of that is happening “in real life”, there are just a lot of other lunatics (and others who know these things are illusions but go along with it because doing so is useful for minimizing discomfort by being able to seek or avoid certain forms) who will agree (that the way their body filters stimuli results in real/accurate/absolute true reflections of the “objective” world).

All one is is what it is experiencing. One (one is the consciousness/subjective experience) who (as a result of reading a sci fi story) is experiencing (their mind’s association with/relating it and resulting interpretation of the story’s antagonist’s) exploration of some alien world is “really” experiencing that just as much as I am really writing this post (which I’ll soon hopefully finish), just as much as a consciousness that thinks it is a businessman doing his job “is” (in that counsciousness’ world/reality/experience) a businessman doing his job.

As I mentioned in my first post, all subjective experience is fantasy (doesn’t accurately reflect anything but that subjective experience), and it is only “bad”/unhealthy fantasy when a) it’s use/overuse makes one’s life less pleasant in the long term or b) it actively harms other’s (who have no interest in the person).

Some things just seem “real” because just about everyone’s minds (after being programmed during infancy and childhood) see the same illusions.

12

I already wrote a lot, but maybe I should try to be clearer… I’ll be as brief as I can in pointing out some things + what I think is/are your main error(s) here, Pandora.

“Perceive it not being there” isn’t an accurate way of saying it. There could be a consciousness thats/whose consciousness/experience/perceptions are not (at the moment/existence/being of that consciousness) on/with/to what one could call “the speeding ticket” in “his” “hand”.

Your point circular argument (“it’s bad to not be attentive/focused on the “real” external world because you should be, as shown in this example when you should be”) … of course not being attentive to the police officer and ticket (information in the external world) is unhealthy, and possibly a sign of some mental illness, but it’s not like every situation where one’s mind is thinking of something that another mind couldn’t point to in the external world is like that example. There are situations where you definitely should be attentive to an “external” thing/event, and there are times when that isn’t so necessary.

“Perceive them away”?
There’s a difference between
A) ignoring/escaping from external stuff that is best attended to for your (minds) long-term well-being and
B) Reading a fantasy novel (on your day off from your steady job) because you enjoy it and it’s how you want to spend the amount of time you have when you don’t have to be attentive to certain external things.

How is it “in conflict” with it? You’re making that assumption.

It is different to say “fantasy” does not accurately express the external world (neither do any of your “real” perceptions, though), as in it has elements nobody else would see (as existing) in the external world, and to say it is “in conflict” with the real world.

That is exactly what you are doing, and the main source of your confusion. The only thing you ever (can) experience is your inner reality – your subjective experience is never an accurate representation of what exists outside of it, whether you are attentive to information (that you form/interpret a certain way) existing in the “external world” (that another mind can also “see”/get information from) or not.

“Reality” is what one is conscious of at a moment. At that moment that is the only reality. Concious(ness at different) moments can label “objects” in its experience as “good” or “bad”, and seeks to avoid “bad”. As a result, certain reoccuring phenomena (judged as contributing to "good"ness or "bad"ness) are given names and then human beings (social animals) can communicate where these things may be, how to obtain/avoid them, etc. One of the most significant reasons for "badness"is when the mind senses the body’s need for food. Necessary nourishment (to keep the mind “good”) is contained in the “real”/external world so, for our mind’s what is needed/what is vital to one’s well-being, is (a) real (concern).

The human abstract/symbolic mind is a maker of fantasy, a storyteller, but some fantasies are more fruitful than others. A mind’s “reality” is what it deems important.

Your error:

External world (containing external objects that another mind can “see” and agree on associated names/symbols) = Verifiable = Real = Good

Internal world = (possibly not attentive to external world/reality/) Not real = Bad.

I saw your post about a “healthy mind” as well. A healthy mind is that which doesn’t curse its existence/itself. An unhealthy body is often a cause for (the mind’s) discontent, but the only judge (using illusions of “good” and “bad”) is a mind, so however a mind deems its reality, that reality is. One can have a “healthy” body (whose necessary functions are workings with minimal limitations) while the mind curses/does not accept/seeks to escape a situation (due to some illusion it ignorantly believes to be an accurate reflection of reality).

13

C’mon. Tell me you’re joking. :-s

There is a distinction between an imagined threat and a real one. A threat that is based in physical external reality can terminate your existence (your mind is attached to a physical brain that exists in external, corporeal reality); an imagined boogeyman cannot. Why do I have to explain the obvious to you?!

There is an actual external world the tangible, corporeal reality of which you are intent on downplaying; the world on which your perceptions depend on and which is governed by set, unyielding laws.

Yes, there is. If all of your sensory organs are working properly you will be able to see it and recognize it, you will be able to tell the difference between a phenomenon that originated from the external world and the one that originated from your imagination.

I am not imagining the keyboard in front of me. My eyes see an actual object in the external world.

Well, one thing I know for sure, I did not imagine a cop into existence. He is an actual physical phenomenon in the corporeal world which my (and others’) senses perceive.

There is no “as opposed”. Others sitting in my car will see the same; they will see a police officer-same features, same external reality.

14

If that were so, there wouldn’t be a distinction between a fantasy and reality.

Illusions? You are mislabeling reality that we’ve evolved to experience through our senses as illusion. On what grounds do make this claim? Do you have knowledge of “real” reality to actually step forward and make a claim that our reality is an illusion? You cannot speak of that of which you have no knowledge of; you cannot define something by something you do not even know. It is nonsensical.

I do not call our external reality a “delusion”. If your sensory organs are working properly what you are experiencing is not a delusion.

No, I don’t think it is more accurate to think of everything that you experience as fantasy. What we perceive through our senses, provided they are functioning like they are supposed to, is our reality. We do not know what The Reality is like that is outside our perceptions, and will never know by definition, so I don’t get why we have to concern ourselves about something that we will never know about, that might or might not even exist, and instead not concentrate on what we can actually work with. Why such insistance on comparing our reality to something which, by definition, we cannot even compare to?
I can compare A and B, and say B is more consistent, while A is more malleable. I can say the source of A is this and the source of B is that. I can differentiate between them because I have access to both and I can go ahead and call one reality and the other fantasy. How can you say, that AB are actually the same when compared to [!!!}… some unknown variable that you cannot by definition even prove to exist as it’s beyond our perception. What are you comparing them to?

Yes, and it is not an error. Lumping all kinds perceptions as an illusion, when some are more persistent (real)than others is an error in judgment.

Imagination exists, so obviously there is a reason for it. But some people go too far; either making external reality equal to fantasy, or making both fantasy in reference to…

15

C’mon! Tell me that this isn’t the extent of your ability to formulate an intelligent refutal?

From this, i learn of your serious lack of knowledge of modern science, and inability to know it.
You toss out so many naive assertions, as if your tiny rule-ridden ‘my-size-fits-all’ world is real for anyone but yourself.
Well, what is obvious to me (proving my point) is that you are in no position to understand another Perspective, as you seem rather heavily ‘invested’ in your own notions, so, I’m not going to waste my time.

A cop, go figure…
Ever interview multiple witnesses to the same event? Any two descriptions match perfectly? Ever? And if you say yes, you are either lying, or an ‘inefficient’ (see; crap!) interviewer.

Sorry, I think that further conversation on this issue would be fruitless. I’m not going to teach you anything and you appear to be in no position to learn anything, so…
I’m ‘unsubscribing’ from the link now (bored).
Please don’t taser me as i leave, officer…
*__-

16

(As I’ve explained well enough already) Your argument(s) are a result of (common) human illusion(s) and resulting delusion(s).

I’ll try to be succinct…

This is your argument:

Survival = (The value/goal/motivation) Good

Health (prolonging/maximizing survival) = Good

(The subjective experience of pain/discomfort felt from illness/hunger/bodily damage) = Bad

That experience of discomfort = Real

That which causes that discomfort = Real

That which alleviates/prevents that discomfort = Real

The external world (with objects, such as food, that can affect one’s health) = Real

Keeping the body in a condition that minimizes discomfort = Good

Keeping the mind attentive to the external/real world (of real things can that harm or help one’s health) = Good

Attending the mind to things that are not in the external world = Bad

Here are some of the errors of your argument(s):

-The assumption that survival (and a healthy body best fit for survival) is the highest goal/value/“good”.

Any value judgements, any “ought” or “ought not” is the creation/interpretation of a symbolic mind. When the body is badly damaged, resulting in the mind experiencing pain, the "bad"ness/"wrong"ness of the bodily pain/limited health is only labeled as such because the mind experiencing it/focusing on it labels it as such.

All "good"s and "bad"s and "ought"s and "ought not"s come down to a mind labeling them as such. The ultimate/highest value/goal is for a mind to accept its experience as (at least) “Fine” : not cursing/being in conflict with any phenomena to a degree that the mind’s experience/environment is/becomes (focused on/interpretted by a) “bad” (context).

-Defending the realness of the (general) ways humans interpret (forms in) the external world by explaining that:

[u]

[/u]

The human body exists because the way its ancestors (reacting to stimuli) moved/acted kept the bodies alive long enough to produce offspring. That doesn’t mean what the ancestors (subjectively) saw/experienced were accurate depictions of what exists outside their mind. But you get that point. So what is reality to you? I have demonstrated it (in my writing out your argument) above.

I

See my post where I explain that a “self” (that exists for more than a moment) is an illusion/delusion (in the context of whether or not it reflects reality outside a thinking/interpretting mind - see my next point, below).

Everything a mind experiences is (that mind’s) reality (and there is no reality a mind can experience that isn’t that and only that mind’s reality). However, I am calling all of these realities “fantasies” because the impressions and interpretations of objects and symbols are never “real” reflections of the outside word. I am calling them (experienced/attention based on/of what you call ‘fantasy’ and 'reality) both fantasies because I am comparing them to YOUR (delusional) idea of “reality”.

My whole point is that the ultimate judge of what is “good”/worth pursuing is that which makes a mind “good” (not experience/label its environment/existence “bad”). Though attending to the external world is necessary/good/right in order to keep the mind in “good” condition, it isn’t always necessary.

17

It is the survival aspect of reality that is responsible for your being. You…being here…doubting reality…that made it possible for you… to be, in the first place.

A mind’s interpretation of a gunshot wound as being real and being bad and undesirable is not an illusion.

It is based on an perception of physical reality in which our physical body operates.

The mind is hardwired, physically, to interpret pain as bad and undesirable. You will not have a choice in whether you should or should not flinch your hand away if it’s in the fire. An example of a physical body in physical world, obeying the laws that molded it into being.

You have no evidence for your claim that the reality we see is not an actual reality that is out there. Until you actually prove it to be otherwise, our senses have evolved within the physical reality and perceive it correctly.

The body to which you are attached is not an illusion; the brain that regulates your mind is also not an illusion. Both are instruments that function in the the physical, external world. Tinker with the brain and your perceptions will be changed (not so vice versa).
video.google.com/videoplay?docid … tory&hl=en

Fact: Perceptions originate the physical brain. Does the physical brain exist and function in a world that is parallel to the external physical reality? Has it evolved in some mystical realm that is not subject to the laws of the external world?
Do you not trust a function of a healthy brain that has evolved for millions of years to interact with the same world (made up of the same stuff) that has created it?

What is a fantasy without reality? If you don’t have access to your “reality”, can, by definition have no concept of it, why be so sure in calling everything a fantasy? My question is: Why do you call it…a fantasy? (and when you answer this question, ask yourself: Why do you call this a fantasy? The point I am trying to get to here is: if you can never know what left is, why call something that you do “right”? How can you label something a fantasy if you have no concept of reality?

Please refer back to my example of a hand being in the fire.

Then you might just a well say that attending to bodily needs is not necessary. You may stop eating today, since the body is just a mind’s delusion.

18

In a word: Cosplay.

Thankyou thankyou Japanese businessman anime freaks.

19

Yes, the fact that the body is (alive) in such a condition that leads to this consciousness cannot be doubted (for the sake of this discussion, at least).

But again, a good working condition of the body is only “good” because it lessens the likelihood the mind will have/experience a “bad” reality; mind can experience/deem a “bad” reality, even if the body is in decent health. It is a mind’s contentment (not cursing/not agreeing with/seeking to escape a “bad” reality) that is the highest value (for the mind) that is the ultimate/base standard of “goodness”/value, even if we know the body has to be alive/functioning (enough) for the a mind to exist.

The mind’s experience is not an illusion, it is reality. But it is an illusion if one thinks it is an accurate impression of anything else.

It is “bad” for the mind, which thinks discomfort is “bad”, but this is only a pragmatic “truth” for (human) minds, which all – wanting to avoid “bad” – experience “bad” when associated body’s are badly damaged. There is no value judgements, no right or wrong, in the world outside a mind’s impression of it.

The wound is only bad under the assumption that survival is good based on the (human) social-acceptance that death (and pain) make the mind uncomfortable.

Yes, the body acts according to many programs passed on from ancestors that resulted in their surviving long enough to procreate. Again, there is nothing “right” or “wrong” or “good” or “bad” about any of this until a mind deems it so.

What do you mean “evidence”? I’m supposed to provide you with material facts that your delusional mind can’t help but sculp to fit your misunderstandinds? Evidence falls under supporting a certain description of (the placement of) forms in spacetime (in the context of communicable/accepted illusory interpretations of phenomena). I am using logic (evidence doesn’t apply here) to make my point.

I have proven my ideas enough, over and over again, you just haven’t understood them. Does your mind perceive the ultra violet light slowly damaging your skin on a very hot day? What about the radiation emitting from your computer (and slowly damaging your body)? A mind can associate itself with/as a “body” (which contains a network of smaller parts) that the mind interprets as “one” single, whole thing (which it associates with bodies that do not exist at that moment), thus associating itself with an “identity”/"self-concept that exists through periods of time. This is an illusion. Nothing exists for more than a moment; minds just think things do because they can use/see/interpret/judge things as (from one moment to the next) fitting certain words. I repeat, using these words, and experiencing these illusions, is useful and “good” (in the context of a mind deeming its existence “good”), but they are not accurate perceptions of that which exists outside a (human) mind.

(All that which a mind interpets as a single, individual) “Body” exists, but a mind’s seeing it as a single body, and thinking that that is the accurate, absolute interpretation of external reality (that which is outside the mind) is an illusion/delusion.

Exactly my point. You say our senses have evolved to accurately see the external world, but your use of “accurate” suffers from your (faulty) assumption that Subjective Pain = Real, Bodily damage = Pain, That which prevents pain = Real, perceptions that prevent pain = Real. The problem is “Real” is always (and can only be) judged by the mind. “Real” is what the mind experiences, and nothing else.

(All) That which we interpret to be “a brain” does exist and function/react to external information.

I trust it “interacts”/reacts to and affects it. But the mind’s impression/interpretation of it is not what it actually is.

“Fantasy” is a human word that is used to differentiate things that aren’t phenomena in the external world. Things that aren’t “real”. Human minds don’t experience the external world as it is (after only a small portion of it is processed and then filtered/altered/interpretted through the body), so, according to the (delusional) standard of (the) “real” (external world humans see), every human mind’s impression of the external world is “fantasy”. But, as I said, every mind’s experience is [i]the /i reality.

Well, I do have access to my “reality”, but…

I am confident asserting that humans don’t see the external world as it is (outside the mind) because this is an understanding (actual) logic leads to. I already explained the illusion of a self (that exists through time/experiences), as well as our inability to sense things in the environment that we know exist. At this point it lies on you to drop your guard (constructed to defend your delusions that have helps you securely interpret experiences and accordingly guide your actions) and take in what I’ve gone great lengths to clarify for you.

I am responding to your arguments/use and interpretation of symbols by showing your misunderstanding of them. I doubt I would have chosen the word if I introduced a topic of debate.

What does “this” refer to?

With logic. Empiricism is always interpretted through one’s (faulty) senses. Senses work great for avoiding danger and eating food, but they reflect how the mind interprets limited information from the external world, not the external world itself (how it is outside the mind). I have already answered this question many, many times with many, many examples.

I don’t understand how you can actually go from my saying attending to the external world is not always necessary to suggesting I imply attending to bodily needs isn’t necessary. Look what I bolded in the quote. If it is a bodily “need” (that will negatively affect the mind if it isn’t properly taken care of) then it should be attended to.

20

Three thoughts on this:

  1. I’m an idealist who believes in an outer world. I don’t believe the outer world to be knowable in terms beyond our own experiences, so in that respect we can’t deal with reality directly. But I do believe in a knowable inner world (and I do take it to be real - a genuine reality), but in that respect it is fully subject to our own making.

  2. I’ve always been skeptical about the treatment of movies, fiction, comic books, and the like as ‘escapes’ from reality - as though we were temporarily fooled into thinking they were real at the time. Rather, I think we endulge in these passtimes because we’re looking for emotional stimulation. Is that equivalent to ‘escaping reality’? I don’t see why that’s necessarily so. We emerse ourselves in these things for the most part because we’re bored. And yes, you could say you’re trying to escape your bordome but this is hardly the same as escaping ‘reality’.

  3. As to the question of whether we ought not to escape reality, I think we do need a healthy balance between focusing on reality and ‘escaping’ into fantasy (if we’re going to use that term) and that when we do one or the other, it be done during the appropriate times. I certainly think we shouldn’t get lost in our fantasies, substituting it for reality during times when it would probably be looked upon by others as psychosis, but I think fantasy has its place. It exists in every culture on Earth, and has existence in every era in history, so it’s a natural part of human life. I think, therefore, that we’re supposed to fantasize from time to time, and that it’s probably part of our evolutionary development.

Of course, we could, as a whole species, push ourselves towards a style of life in which we abandon all fantasy and try with all our strength to deal with reality as effectively as we can without escaping into fantasy, but I think this have detrimental effects at first, and in the off chance that we might be able to grow and become accustome to it, it wouldn’t be you or me, or any of our direct descendents; it would be a new kind of human being, a leap in evolution, a genetic mutation, one that has no need for fantasy and gets by quite well in reality facing it for what it is at all times.