Higher existence?

Tarn (@tarn) 9 years, 9 months ago

Maybe this has already been said- Although I love existentialism, there is alot for me to learn yet. I scribbled some ideas down before I went to sleep the other night, here it is…

Everything is subjective- formed from ideas and feelings. Therefore life is created, and only exists in conscious state (Nietzsche?), and therefore dreaming would be a form of living. If this is true, would this make the ‘dream life’ a higher existence, with factors such as heightened emotions, non-existence of pain, and the factor of the subconscious controlling the dream?

Whats everyones thoughts on this?

August 9, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

I don’t know about everything you are asking but for dreaming I can give an opinion. To me the Dreaming is another plane of existence, one of energy not matter. As energy is without form it is not fixed so is subject to influences in a manner that matter is not. In my culture, for anything to become real in the material world it must begin as energy on this plane of the Dreaming and manifest form. Basically, to me the Dreaming is not where we are going, as in a higher existence, but rather where we are from, the basic existence.

[Hidden]
Tarn (2) (@tarn) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

That sounds very similar to what I believe actually! I think I may have used the wrong term when I said ‘higher existence’. What I should have said is a higher form of living perhaps? Or a better form of living? As in, it is a form of reality, but without the pitfalls of this reality, a reality where physical pain does not exist.

What culture are you from may I ask? It’s interesting how modern existentialism, and spirituality can run so close together!

[Hidden]
Nightowl (260) (@nightowl) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

Ray, “Dreaming is another plane of existence, one of energy not matter.” Why do you draw a dualism between energy and matter? Matter is the appearance of slow energy.

That being related, here is my sentiment as to this. There is similarly no duality to be drawn between dream and reality – dreams are real and part of reality as well. All reality is continuous and equally real. In the dream world, the energy of the cosmos is not densified, the dualistic quality that brings energy to the slow appearance of semi-constance that we dub matter. This does make it a truer existence, as the illusion of matter that results from profoundly dense vibration is not present.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@tarn, I am Australian Aboriginal, you can look into a lot about my culture, but as any it is subject to personal interpretation and the means of ones own understandings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aborigines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamtime

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@nightowl, Matter is the result of constructive relationships in energy. Yes matter is fundamentally linked to energy, but conceptual thought is also linked to life (as far as we know) and the fact is that not all life has conceptual thought. So as that example differs, although obviously linked, so to does energy and matter differ. (also, life is made up of matter but not all matter is life)

[Hidden]
Nightowl (260) (@nightowl) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

Then, by your statement to which I fully agree, matter is not something that exists itself but appears as a collective constructive behavior of that which is real, energy. This would follow all the way up to organic life as well just the same.

This, at least from how it appears to me, lends further credence that there is no true difference to be drawn between dreams and reality, for Both are Both. This reality is a dream as dreams are also reality.

This is, in fact, why I feel the “dream world” is a truer state of being – it does not appear to be based on the illusion of matter.

[Hidden]
Tarn (2) (@tarn) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@nightowl, @trek79, Both of your thoughts are very interesting! However, they both sound like they are thoughts from more encompassed group of thoughts from religion? Where do these theories take foundation?

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@nightowl, Yes, but the dream world does not exist because we dream it, we exist because we were dreamed. All matter is energy but not all energy is life, it is evolution of the quantum. But as you say “both are both” I like to see them as parrallel realities, one that we are sourced at but not exclusive. Our reality is the conceptual reality, an animals reality is the life reality, an atoms reality is the matter reality but by the time you get so fundamental as energy, the phenomenon is indistinguishable from its reality. That is, the reality of energy is not the energy reality but energy is the reality.
All are sourced from a common phenomenon but each is a step up and above the predecessor on the quantum evolutionary scale.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@tarn, I never really claim anything I say takes foundation, just it is my belief and opinion. I do not have to justify its credibility, I simply leave it to stand as it is. Why we need justification on faith? Now that is the bigger question.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (2,654) (@) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

No, not everything is subjective, my dear philosophers. There are objective points of view that completely disregard such threads as this. What I mean is, I wouldn’t even respond to such a thread, I’m just informing you and that’s an objective contribution.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@beyond, But what is objective is subjective. What is the foundation of morality? It stands on faith as much as anything else, including objectivity.

[Hidden]
Tarn (2) (@tarn) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@beyond, Is your view that not everything is subjective, subjective in itself? A view of perspectivism?

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

Science may be considered objective, but that objectivity is confined to our understandings, what we know about the universe. Only when we have full understanding of the complete universe may we be able to call things truly objective.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (2,654) (@) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@trek79, Existentialism includes objective points of view plus subjective points of view. It includes everything. If we start talking about human nature, it must be scientifically objective, otherwise we won’t understand the subjectives. The foundation of morality… you know very well that it changes continuously in your mind. Morality is an expression of your values taking an objective test appreciated subjectively.

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@beyond, Yes but objectivity only exists according to known points of reference, but those points of reference need to be validated by other points of reference. If those other points of reference are unknown then our objectivity is a variable, which contradicts the meaning of objectivity. But if those points of reference are known then they must be validated by other points of reference, and so on and so on until everything we know serves as a point of reference.
The pickle is, that once you run out of things to validate points of reference, you cannot simply use a point of reference, that has already been used, to validate your last point of reference because it is a causality loop. The only objective point of reference, that validates all other reference points, and gives us true objectivity is the origin, the spark of the universe, how and what initiated it.
The new pickle is that understanding the spark requires un-validated points of reference. So ultimately we have a dead end. Unless we can find an objective paradigm that allows us to understand the spark then we cannot truly understand it. But if we do find an objective paradigm, then we can validate everything we know without understanding the spark.

[Hidden]
Anonymous (2,654) (@) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@trek79, Isn’t it fascinating that we’re always in a loop which progresses as fast as our understanding of it? :)

I agree with you. But I cannot agree with the idea of “Higher Existence”. :)

[Hidden]
Tarn (2) (@tarn) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@beyond, I feel my using of the term ‘higher existence’ has mislead the topic a great deal, I apologise. What I meant by that was a fuller reality, if that makes sense? I didn’t mean afterlife, or anything of that nature. Sorry for the confusion!

You both have brought up some very interesting points and ideas though nonetheless :)

[Hidden]
Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 9 years, 9 months ago ago

@beyond, Yep, as I said in https://www.highexistence.com/topic/contradictory-beliefs/
if we don’t understand something, we make something up and come back to it when we are equipped to deal with it. We make something up because it is impossible to sleep if you cannot ignore that question.

[Hidden]
Boy Elroy (5) (@boy8elroy) 7 years, 10 months ago ago

I liked reading this thread a lot.
“…we’re always in a loop which progresses as fast as our understanding of it…”
And the conservation of energy is the ultimate loop

[Hidden]
Viewing 18 reply threads
load more