Reality is not real… really

 Nic (@ltwild3)8 years, 5 months ago


Lets define what a thing is. According to, a thing is anything that is or may become an object of thought.

That means a thing is not real, it is a concept. When you read these words your brain creates the meaning of them, they are inherently nothing until we project their meaning back onto them. Same goes with every-thing, if you look at the wall, you do not see its true nature, because you immediately skew its true nature with projected thoughts of the object, such as white, flat, square, wall, ect. The wall in its pure nature is no thing. It cannot be labeled, even with the word it!! Everything you experience is a projection of your own or someone else’s creation. Pure nature without perception is truly no-thing. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? No! The tree is not even there, without the perception there can be nothing to perceive. The tree exists in the mind.

Don’t get me wrong though, nothing is not blackness, like most people imagine, because blackness is something. Nothing is everything, without perception or labels.

If everything you experience is in fact the creation of your own mind, then thoughts and concepts are just as real as anything you would argue to be concrete, such as gravity. For we do not experience gravity, we experience the translated idea into language of gravity, the concept created by mind. Imagination is just as real as anything believed to be external, because external does not exist. It cannot without you to experience it from the internal. In other words, out does not exist without in. Therefore if one claims to be atheist, they believe in the concept of god. Because if there really was no god, then atheists could not argue that god does not exist!

Now this brings up another point that I will go ahead and argue. One’s natural response would usually be that we can pick out patterns in the “external” that we can come to recognize and work with, and that is the only tool I use to perceive reality. In other words, “I only believe in math and science to maintain a rational viewpoint!” But do you really? I would argue no, because you think with language, which is an inconsistent form of math. For you to only believe in the rational math and science that we “discover” you would have to think in that language its self. You would have to think in pure math. But you don’t, you translate the results of math and the scientific process into your language, which means it is no longer pure. It is corrupted by interpretation. That does not mean it is not a useful tool. It just means it is “illogical” to say science and math are the only way to get answers, because that is not how we inherently think.

What I mean by language being a faulty math is that it is based on the same concept of math. We can pick out repeatable patterns from nature, in this case sight or sound, and derive its meaning based on it’s relation to something else. But language is not consistent like “math” is. The perfect example of this is, with different languages comes different cultures. And with different cultures comes the opportunity for taboo. Taboo is the proof that language is shoddy math, because we come up with different results with the same evidence. Even within the same language everything can be perceived entirely differently from person to person. Hints why people argue and debate about anything.

Meaning that if you think with language, you have to believe in the opposite balance of all things for anything to exist. The yinyang. Without the duality you could not manifest any thought. You could not think of hot without the thought of cold. So god does and does not exist. That’s the only way it could be, so arguing for either side is correct and true. Hints why the debate goes nowhere.

Let us not also forget that your senses, such as touch and smell are limited in their range (electromagnetic spectrum) So you get limited access to reality, then your brain translates that pure, but limited signal down into an even simpler form called thought.

So I would argue that what you call reality is but far from it simply because you named it.

Let me also add that pure affection for all beings can be achieved through this mindset, if you recognize that without the “external” there could be no “internal”(you). Which means that without me, or sky, or trees, or anything else you can experience, you would not exist, because there would be nothing to perceive. So loving everything like you would yourself becomes easy once you realize everything you once thought external is just as much you as “you” are. Differentiation between “things” is an illusion as well because separateness is just an idea.

Now if all that isn’t enough of a mind-fuck, how do you explain coming to that ideology through language if all language is illusory. Can an illusion (or concept) truly express what reality might be? In fact claiming that this ideology is not pure bullshit as well would be hypocritical!!!

But hypocrisy is just an illusion ;)

January 15, 2013 at 10:14 pm
littlemartian (29) (@littlemartian) 8 years, 5 months ago ago

@ltwild3 i get you,bro. You explained it well. Our perception of this world get corrupted the moment we come into this world. All of it is borrowed from family, friends , the people we meet. Keep up the thoughts. i believe we can only understand everything by understanding ourselves. But to start understanding ourselves, our perception of reality is only contaminated. We need to start at the basic level. :)

littlemartian (29) (@littlemartian) 8 years, 5 months ago ago
linnea (72) (@linnea) 8 years, 5 months ago ago

@ltwild3, Nice explanation of this subject. Though what you said about separateness being an illusion isn’t new to me, you expanded my mind to some other new things, I liked it and it makes sense

Ray Butler (1,423)M (@trek79) 8 years, 5 months ago ago

@ltwild3, You could say reality is a state of mind.

Elise (10) (@heynowcosmicchild) 8 years, 5 months ago ago

@ltwild3, Thank you for this. Best mindfuck ever :)

Anonymous (3) (@) 8 years, 5 months ago ago

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Salvamar (0) (@lifeguard021) 8 years, 5 months ago ago

best mindfuck indeed.

Dan (890) (@danfontaine) 8 years, 5 months ago ago

A thing is me is me is me is me is me is me is me is me is me, how far down the rabbit hole do you need to go?

winslow (85) (@winslow) 8 years, 5 months ago ago

But reality shows aint real. -Wale

Dan (890) (@danfontaine) 8 years, 5 months ago ago

@ltwild3, I like your message that something is inevitable because nothing doesn’t exist.

Dan (890) (@danfontaine) 8 years, 5 months ago ago

Existence is a burst of fathom upon could it happen, ?
time void expression of the movement that encompass
Cunts they like dick, dicks wish they could blow someone’s lid.
Even if it’s a penis tip.
My message drip phantasm.
Gallant phantom strutting around the theater ,laughing.
Get out of the trash bin, play Aladdin and fall in love with the Jasmine,
just another way of saying your sag pants look like a sad sack, and I think you should nab, scram. What you’re built for, you ploy, you sham.
My jam not infanticide just outlining another fake fucker dying,
For sake’s good, I separate the bad from the hood
I split a splice and start spitting splurge
Ya heard?
God damnit my heart is on the turn
Full effect meets the prospect
Just learned the direct object is the same as the Project.

Anonymous (251) (@) 8 years, 5 months ago ago

@ltwild3, great post! It’s been my way of thinking for a wee while now, and well, it’s pretty cool. It puts you back in control of your own life and makes you realise, actually, the possibilities are endless.

‘What you perceive to be, is your reality’ – Dub FX

Anonymous (68) (@) 8 years, 5 months ago ago

@ltwild3, you cant call someones perception of a world correct and someones elses wrong, right? So that would mean that either all are correct or niether one is. But i think the world exists without you percieving it, otherwise you could not be born ie. you cant create reality (with your mind, perception) without existing in one.

Lagnuage is a tool. Words are connected to pictures, sounds and other expiriences stored in our bain. Some basic ones are tried to be inserted into us when we were kids so you can learn more. So language is someones thought summed into something that other could understand (ie to connect certain information with his memory, expirience). So when someone has written something he sees his version of it, his thoughts, but someone else will jjust read the word, just basic meaning of that word. But you can try to “feel” the artist and sympathize but then you will se your version of it based on your expirience etc.

You cant say that god exist just because someone said it doesnt. Its like saying this: “Because if there really were no dragons, then ‘atheists’ (no-dragon believers) could not argue that dragons do not exist!”

Nic (60) (@ltwild3) 8 years, 4 months ago ago

@arcanus, All I can say is yes lol

@bono95zg, “But i think the world exists without you percieving it, otherwise you could not be born ie.”

I understand what you mean, but you can not verify that. I could not be real, I could just be a figment of you imagination with the specific task of fucking with you. Many people underestimate the power of their brain. There are as many neural connections and communications in your brain as there are stars in the universe. You know how much power that is? Our brain is like a microcosm of the universe, so why is it illogical to state that it is the driving force of it all?

“Lagnuage is a tool”
Of course it is, I agree with you 100% But we over use it in a sense. Try to think of something right now without using language…. In fact try not to think for 10 seconds. How did it go? I bet within 2 seconds you thought of how you could possibly not think. You see it is a tool that we have become overindulgent in, and as a result we now exist only in the world of language. Hints why “everything” is an illusion. Everything we experience is not that experience, but the descriptive qualities we ourselves attributed to it. So we do indeed create “reality”.

God is only concept! For if there were a true god in the actual reality of nothingness, it could not be described. See most people worship the god of language, because the god of language is the only one we can interact with on an “external” basis, unless you think you are god, which I believe is more logical. Since we are indeed the creators of all experience.

So an atheist is as dependent on god as a christian in a sense. Because all things are just a concept, so if there truly were no god, you could not possibly argue that one did not exist, because you could not even form that idea. Hints why I say that argument goes nowhere.

“You cant say that god exist just because someone said it doesnt. Its like saying this: “Because if there really were no dragons, then ‘atheists’ (no-dragon believers) could not argue that dragons do not exist!””

But of course I can if everything is just a concept. Because if there were no concept of dragon, you would not have a dragon to not believe in. You see… this is all just a play with words. In turn a play with your reality.

E.C.F. Doyle (346) (@chekovchameleon) 8 years, 4 months ago ago

Great post man! There are no certainties except acknowledgement of the self.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.”

-Bertrand Russel

Nic (60) (@ltwild3) 8 years, 4 months ago ago

@chekovchameleon, Well then I hope this does not sound egotistical, but the best thing I have ever learned is that I know nothing.

E.C.F. Doyle (346) (@chekovchameleon) 8 years, 4 months ago ago

@ltwild3, Of course it doesn’t. Never belittle your quest for wisdom. Peace and love.

Blah (363) (@tentninja) 7 years ago ago

‘ No! The tree is not even there, without the perception there can be nothing to perceive. The tree exists in the mind.’

what if the tree is capable of perceiving itself and the environment around it?

what if we are thinking inside the box here, to think outside the box lets not make ourselves the focus of this discussion, but consciousness as a whole.

For example, if a dead tree was too fall, and there was no consciousness around to see or hear it… did it fall? no because consciousness was not there to give it meaning.

If a tree that was alive fell, i would argue that a tree is a form of consciousness and therefore say that it did fall, because the tree itself could perceive it falling.

Now answer me this, when is consciousness ever not around to witness something?

on earth there is consciousness in every single spot on the planet. The planet itself is beginning to be noticed as a living organism itself. So long as consciousness exists on earth, the earth will exist, and i think everything that does exist has conciousness, we just dont have the ability to see it. For example you cant see life in a rock because the rock on its own is not alive, but with the whole earth it is.

Just as you alone are not alive, what keeps you alive are the millions of organisms which make you a whole, such as bacteria etc.

We are what keep the earth alive just as bacteria keeps us alive.

Right now the earth is sick, because what is keeping her alive is trying to kill her.

When we realise this and we change our behaviours, we will begin to work with the planet (which you see happening already) and the more we do the more alive the planet will become, until eventually it is self aware :)

This is inevitable i think, but then its just a theory of mine, and i might be completely wrong :) but this was a very interesting post!!!!!! what a great way to spark conversation!! :)

fucking love this website.

NacroxNicke! (3) (@nacrox) 7 years ago ago

I like this view as it relates with the view of voidness of the Buddhism, they both share the lack of identity of own beings by themselves, but also zen appoints that reality indeed exists, it’s just not made of independent things, it’s just a grand scheme working together :).

Blah (363) (@tentninja) 7 years ago ago

‘language being a faulty math’ & ‘I would argue no, because you think with language, which is an inconsistent form of math’

i completely agree with you.

Maths has rules and regulations which cant be broken, if they do the maths becomes inconsistant and incorrect.

Look at the english language for example, it is not so much a mathematical language at all. In fact i would argue that English the first universally creative language and i will explain why…

English started as Germanic tribes began to invade Rome and create what is now Europe. Our language was mainly Germanic until the Church convinced the english to start adopting Latin words as well, the age of enlightenment was spawned and we became masters of the seas and adventurers. We went around the world conquering everything as our own and meeting all the different countries with their varied languages and cultures.

Many of these new cultures had created words for things we hadnt yet, so we went around the world collecting words and adding them to our dictionary from all over the world (we just made them sound a little bit more english)

many other cultures also notice how limiting their own language is compared to english, for example i knew a girl from the maldives who’s father taught her english before he taught her his mother tongue so that she could think in english, as he believed thinking in Maldivian limited the mind as their country had evolved in a very controlling manner due to their muslim dictator imposing religious laws on them and such.

So what we now have with english is the building blocks for our new universal language, it will change over the years and eventually sound nothing like what we think english to be now..

but the only way this will happen is if people allow for the creativity and creation of new words to happen. We make it sound like its a bad think when someone says a word thats become ‘popular’ and say they’re just following the crowd. But we are a crowd and we should be following each other, it just seems we are doing it the wrong way at the moment.

YHVH (462) (@spaceghost) 6 years, 10 months ago ago

Neither, they are both pictures. :)

load more