Kevin's Watch

Take what you said and reverse it 180 degrees, and that is what I mean. Reality is what is real; our perceptions do not alter reality. If we somehow became able to completely alter our perceptions, those perceptions are the only thing that change, not reality. In fact, nothing really changes except our willingness to accept reality.

What if we don't accept reality? Then are we simply a whiny drug induced mass of worthless skincells that need to be thrown on the slagpile of nothingness?

But what is reality without perception? Reality would still exist, true, but it has no universal meaning to us. It's subjective. Only each invdividual's perception can define what reality is to them.

Ahh, but how important are we? Are we more important than the reality we perceive? Why is it so important that we can change our perceptions, if not to tune them towards true reality?

I think reality is a pretty boring blank slate, if you ask me, and each person colors it with their perception, their individuality. Kind of like graffiti, but in a good, non-destructive sense. Like in Pleasantville.

Well, graffiti certainly makes a statement, but the wall is what's holding up the roof.

As long as we use spray paint on the wall for our individual indentations and not a sledgehammer, it's cool, yeah. People like Hitler used the sledgehammer, I guess.

It's interesting that you mention colors, LF, as Chopra says a little later,

Deepak Chopra wrote:Sir John Eckles who won the Nobel prize in physiology and medicine several years ago made the statement, "I want you to understand that there are no colors in the real world. That there are no textures in the real world. There are no fragrances in the real world. There is no beauty, there is no ugliness. Nothing of the sort. Out there is a chaos of energy soup and energy fields. Literally. We take that and somewhere inside ourselves we create a world. Somewhere inside ourselves it all happens."

Awesome. I really like that quote.

In relation with it, I'll state that I also find what my chemistry teacher once said to my old class very interesting. He said we're basically empty space, and (correct me if I'm wrong; I can hardly recall) the negative charge of our electrons bouncing off of other negatively charged electrons gave us the illusion of solidity. It's the only thing keeping us from, say, oozing out of our chairs and unbalancing all our notions of reality.

What drivel. Nobel prize, you say? I think he won a piece of driftwood that he perceived to be a Nobel prize.....

What ever works (Funny that the Nobel Prize is in honor of a guy who figured out how to blow up things real good! )

This discussion has drifted alarmingly close to the truth. “If a tree falls in the forest will it make a sound?” We are programmed to accept that this scenario must produce the same circumstances whether we are physically present or not. But the truth is that we have no actual proof that the tree fell or that it made a sound. We don’t truly know if the tree ever genuinely existed in the first place. Do the members of Kevin’s Watch disappear when I log off and then return when I direct my attention back to the Watch? Does the light turn off when you close the refrigerator or does the entire interior of the fridge actually disappear? What proof do you have that the entire universe doesn’t completely disappear when you lose consciousness? The fact that the sun rises when you wake is no proof.

Though there is no true proof, I'm pretty sure life doesn't stop and start like that for us or one person or anybody. If it did, why doesn't it stop when I'm about to get smashed by that oncoming--

*splat!*

Heh . . . I'm of the group that believes the tree still makes a vibration, even if there is nothing to record it. I believe things do exist and can happen and do happen without any perception having to be there to see it or hear it or taste it or touch it or sniff it or blow it up.

TOM C wrote:What proof do you have that the entire universe doesn’t completely disappear when you lose consciousness?

When someone dies, the world is still here, so obviously either I'm the one true thing that exists and the rest is all fake and going to disappear with my dying consciousness, or somebody else out there is the One and we're all going to disappear when he/she dies.

In the end the only thing that truly matters is expressed very well in my signature.

I'll go with that!

Today I thought we might ponder the concept of happiness.

Dan Millman wrote:I once believed that our most fundament human desire is happiness. And that all our searches, high and low, whether for spiritual illumination or material possessions, are ultimately directed toward that sense of fulfillment, satisfaction --happiness. I no longer believe this to be true. After all, is the end-point of human evolution, and all our quests, represented by walking around with goofy grins on our faces? No, I think what we seek, most fundamentally, is meaning, purpose, direction, and connection.

Somehow I agree but disagree, sure, but why can't we be happy at the same time. Of course we should strive to create and be more but why not have a blast while doing so?

*waves to Danlo...so what does a typical Haruchai wave look like anyway? Moving one fingertip?*

Tom C wrote:

This discussion has drifted alarmingly close to the truth. “If a tree falls in the forest will it make a sound?” We are programmed to accept that this scenario must produce the same circumstances whether we are physically present or not. But the truth is that we have no actual proof that the tree fell or that it made a sound. We don’t truly know if the tree ever genuinely existed in the first place. Do the members of Kevin’s Watch disappear when I log off and then return when I direct my attention back to the Watch? Does the light turn off when you close the refrigerator or does the entire interior of the fridge actually disappear? What proof do you have that the entire universe doesn’t completely disappear when you lose consciousness? The fact that the sun rises when you wake is no proof.

Ever read "The Ultimate Egoist" by Theodore Sturgeon? It's a hysterically funny--and scary--short story built around this idea.

Durris, I haven't read that story but dAN has told me about it. I thought it was a very neat idea. I think I will enjoy reading that very much indeed.

I'm very happy that at least two souls have wandered into the garden today. Unlike some others I actually like to hear other people's thoughts. Tho I doubt dAN will come today--he's mad at me for calling him a "tighty"

danlo wrote:I'm very happy that at least two souls have wandered into the garden today. Unlike some others I actually like to hear other people's thoughts. Tho I doubt dAN will come today--he's mad at me for calling him a "tighty"

dAN may pop his head in at some point. I'm not that familiar with the term "tighty". Is that a comment about one's rectal clenching?