--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nelsonriddle2001" <nelsonriddle2001@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "compost1uk" <compost1uk@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nelsonriddle2001"
> > > <nelsonriddle2001@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u" <wgm4u@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snippus interruptus>
> > > > > > > It should be obvious to anyone who has spent some
> > > > > > > time here that we do not all live in the same reality.
> > > > > > > The frequency -- and the *vehemence* -- of the never-
> > > > > > > ending arguments about what "Reality" is should clue
> > > > > > > us in to the fact that we are all seeing different
> > > > > > > realities.
> > > > sipp,,
> > > > >
> > > > > Suggesting that this person's reality is Reality
> > > > > is to suggest that there is only *One* Reality.
> > > > > And sorry, but I'm not buyin' that one...
> > > > >
> > > > It would seem that there must be as many realities as there
> > > > are people for no two can have the same view point as in I am
> > > > shorter than you so you have a higher view etc.
> > > > Given that each of us has a different history,nothing will be
> > > > seen quite the same. Like the immigration survey in CA- 70
> > > > percent said "no es problema seriosa.
> > >
> > > But Nelson - why does that add up to "many realities"? Why not
> > > just "multiple perspectives on the same, one, reality"?
> > >
> > > If I see you in the distance, I see only one side of you. That
> > > doesn't mean I don't see *you*: It just means my perception is
> > > incomplete.
> > >
> > > If, at the same time, someone is gazing at your other side -
> > > does that mean we are blessed with TWO Nelson Riddles?
> >
> > I would hope not,,
>
> *That* is the reaction I am most fascinated by.
+++ Being in one place at a time is more than enough as it is.
> > You are right- multiple views of the same reality like the blind
> > men and the elephant- each found the elephant to be, for them, a
> > different discovery.
>
> My point is that my experiences along the spiritual
> path have convinced me that there is no elephant.
> What I find fascinating is that people really *want*
> -- almost to the point of *need* -- there to be an
> elephant in the room. :-)
> +++ wouldn't two realities be in the realm of infinity plus one?
> > I guess that by definition you could only have one reality but,
> > as we see these days, a lot of people are trying to obscure it.
>
> I really don't agree with your "definition," and
> hold that to be a desire for consensus Reality,
> nothing more.
> +++ Here, I try not to define much but, only have an opinion or, observation
> lest I get into trouble.
> What makes me believe this (or posit this, because
> I don't really have "fixed" beliefs one way or
> another on all of this) are my experiences with
> what Carlos Castaneda termed "separate realities."
> I'm talking about siddhis and/or paranormal events
> that simply *do not map* to most people's ideas
> about what Reality entails. Most fascinatingly,
> they *do not map* WHILE the experiences are going
> on, and afterwards.
>
> You're sitting there or standing there in a *very*
> separate reality in which the mountain that was
> solid in front of you a minute before no longer
> is, and you can see through it. And you *know*
> that this cannot be happening, but it is. Or you
> are sitting less than three feet from someone
> who just "goes transparent," so that you can
> see stars through his body. Or you find yourself
> able to do things that are not considered possible
> in "normal" reality, or watch other people do
> these things.
>
> These "separate realities" are SO separate as to
> be profoundly shocking -- intellectually and
> physiologically. Your whole *body* reacts to them,
> trying to convince you that you didn't see and
> experience what you just saw and experienced.
> But you did.
> +++ I have had such expieriences- another level of our potential- no big deal.
> I honestly believe that the desire for there to
> be a "definition" that says that there is only
> one Reality ("There can only be one," a la
> Highlander) is driven by 1) pandering to con-
> sensus reality...going with the herd, 2) want-
> ing there to be only one Reality because that
> is simpler and one can convince oneself that
> you can "get a handle on it" or "understand"
> it all someday, and 3) what I call "scripture
> fulfillment fantasies."
>
> The last is most interesting from a sociological
> perspective. People glom on to a philosophy or
> religion and find that it "defines" their version
> of Reality. And so they start to practice "con-
> firmation bias" thinking, trying to project what
> they have come to believe is the "definition" of
> Reality onto what they perceive as reality all
> around them, trying to make a square peg fit
> into a round hole. For example, repeating the
> "God is love" mantra over and over while gazing
> at the aftermath of a hurricane that has just
> killed tens of thousands of people.
>
> I'm more comfortable with allowing round holes
> to remain round holes. I don't feel the need to
> redefine them as square pegs, or even "under-
> stand" what makes some things round holes and
> others square pegs. Things just *are* the way
> that they are.
> +++ Does everything exist with no reason?
> This is not a subject that any of us can declare
> ourselves "winners" on. It's *completely* a matter
> of belief. Mine is that "multiple realities" works
> to explain the world as I have experienced it far
> more accurately than "one Reality perceived many
> different ways."
>
> And pragmatically, the only real difference between
> these two views is the sense of "ease" that each
> develops in the seeker or perceiver. If you tend
> to believe that there is only One Reality, you
> are pretty much stuck in seeking mode until you
> convince yourself you have "found" that One
> Reality. And at that point history tells us that
> what you tend to do with that vision of One Reality
> is start a religion that over time causes millions
> of deaths trying to impose itself on other people. :-)
> +++ I have observed that telepathy works in some circumstances and,
you don't have to believe it. If is your expierience, you will believe but,
in the meantime it isn't a problem.
> The "separate reality" philosophy allows you just
> to relax and enjoy what happens, whatever happens.
> There is no need to try to impose one's view of
> reality on other people, because theirs is -- and
> should be -- different from yours. I doubt that
> you'd ever find very many "separate reality"
> zealots. :-)
>
It seems that the major religions have some different realities and some of
them seem somewhat zealous (maybe I missed something)
