Objective VS Subjective

When it does work well, it’s fine, but the delusion of (when a mind associates itself with) “the self”, and equating that with “the” body (a body only appears to be the same through spacetime; two bodies are never wholly the same) causes the mind a lot of agony–cursing/being in conflict with the subjective environment/experience/reality (and basically, itself, as that which the mind experiences is that mind) is what “hell” refers to.

To suffer due to thinking people don’t understand you, or due to striving to not be lonely, thinking you are not “right” if you are not married, or thinking you’re not wealthy enough–these concerns (assuming they are not actually necessary to avoid physical damage to the body–which results in pain that the mind screams to avoid) only cause one misery because one believes they are “right”, and that, if one cannot identify (be) them, one is then wrong (and thus in conflict with his “right” self/ goodness, reality, heaven, whatever).

As I said, these illusions are, to a certain extent, unavoidable–I am going to see “my friend” from time to time, and we’re both going to communicate with each other as if we are those minds that have communicated in the past. That isn’t the case, but we do have access to memories that, with (illusion-based) language, we can both “validate” as having happened. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this as long as “the” minds have been programmed (at a “young age”) to understand the self is only an illusion, and that everyone’s motivation is to strive towards thoughts and actions that make future (temporarily arising) minds more likely to not feel in conflict with their experiences; however this isn’t the case for most people–culture tells them certain verbs and nouns (which are also illusions; they just appear static) are “good” and “ought to be (done)”, and people “take this to heart” and suffer a great deal by trying to maintain the positive validity of something (the self/soul) that doesn’t even exist (for longer than a single moment).

I think if people were brought up to understand these are all illusions, life would be treated as a very unique, unusual and even theatrical temporary situation. Minds would know these “selves” are only parts, roles, and I think this (assuming food, shelter, emotional support and intellectual/creative outlet are supported and encouraged) could result in a more joyful, creative mindset towards life (with these illusions); the way one actively works with/organized the objects of their experiences (in order to program the mind to interpret future experiences certain ways), and the way one colors/sculpts this (social) “self”, could be felt like an ongoing, lifelong work of art–a sculpture that, in a sense, is its creator (both sculpting themselves with each moment’s deterioration of form and addition of clay).

quite an interesting post, hatter

my first question would be: what’s the duration of a “single moment”?

a breath, the blink of an eye, a roller coaster ride, a lifetime…

moments are not measured by “duration” but by the experience felt…at least for me.

I know this was not addressed to me.

There are by far very few things that hold objective permanence.

  • you’re response is sort of what i was getting at by asking the question - how can we form a conception of mind as that which exists for but a single moment, when the duration of a moment is arbitrary?

no worries - responses are always appreciated

true, but experience is continuous nonetheless

For instance, the sun, the moon, the stars, the trees, ad infinitum?

The sun eventually dies.

The moon eventually get’s hit by a giant asteroid.

Stars eventually fade away.

Trees die when the planet eventually comes to a end.

So on and so fourth.

Continuous only until it’s end.

of course - probably nothing is eternal - even the time we use as a measure of permenance

Ah, and you are right…I didn’t think far enough. So actually what is there that does hold objective permanence - that which began it all. Really, something had to have began it, whether you call that something god, or the universe itself, a fluke. Our beginnings could not have come about from pure nothingness. If they have, you can say that nothingness began it all. And in a sense, to feel that is actually “subjective” so name one thing that we can say holds objective permanence. The soul, the deepest part of the atom, is it the quark? We probably go even much, much, much deeper than that.

hmmm, that begs the question, does it really end? When does experience end, are you saying when we die? If you are saying that when we live, experience is capable of ending, then you are placing a “duration” of the moment. There may appear to be an hour, a day, a year, but really, there is only the moment and one can live only in the moment. Each moment, even if looked at as the “future” is still the “moment”. So does experience really “end”?

And we certainly cannot know what goes on when we die.

I believe expirience and consciousness ends when you die, yes.

Yes but we can try to by understanding life and death especially when it comes to pulling the plug on our various individual physical organs that make sensory expirience possible.

The reality of it all is that everything is in a constant flux and shift. Eternal permanence is impossible.

What started it all? I don’t know. It doesn’t really matter I don’t think.

I agree.

What oppositions? What are you referring to exactly?

consciousness does not end, the narrative of the individual self ends - in other words, your participation in consciousness ends

I think that is just a different way of saying what I said. :slight_smile:

a different way of framing it, yeah - i just think we tend to overstress the localization of consciousness inside our own skull, is what i was getting at …

Yeah we do.

Yes, but there again, we are only “pulling the plug” as you say, on our physical forms, on matter. The brain influences our senses, or sensations. If there is an afterlife, what remains is not physical form so how could we possibly understand the non-physical by way of the physical?