Of Subjective Dreams and Objective Reality

Of Subjective Dreams and Objective Reality


Notice how dreams, no matter how preposterous, often seem real during their course. How is that? Well, their reality is tested against their ground of being. During their course, there is no conscious being but that of the dreamer, who alone defines the ground of being. It is only when the dream becomes inconsistent with the unfolding "architecture" as it is being defined by the dreamer that the dreamer realizes he is dreaming, and then he consciously decides to end the dream and redirect his senses to the external world.

As to what we take to be the external, real world, its ground of being is defined in shared association with every awakened perspective of consciousness. So how is it that every particular perspective, when awake, measurably and objectively shares in the same ground of being? Well, one way to conceptualize an explanation is to conceptualize that each of us is but an organization of immeasurably tiny "particles" of condensate from one and the same field of consciousness. Insofar as the same field is defining our ground of being, we sense that we share the same ground. Indeed, the fact that we so measurably and objectively share the same ground of being leads many of us to presume that ground is independent, even independent of its sponsoring field of consciousness.

Notice that my conceptualization depends on ultimate particles that express a quality of consciousness, but that are, convenient to my model, quantitatively too tiny to be subjective to individual objective measure. So long as a modeler seeks to provide a complete and mathematically measureable map of objective reality, this will never satisfy. Only when he begins to apprehend the rainbow receding quality for limits of math and objectivity will he begin to consider that the qualitative may "really" be superior to the quantitative, i.e., that being is superior and prior to being measured.


********


Once we ban metaphysics, are we left with any possibility for adducing "the truth" about any moral system that carries any non-biased, objective, logical, natural, empirical, and/or scientific validity?


Having recently read the "Life of Pi," I don't quite grok why we should presume it reasonable to expect to adduce "the truth that abides about God," as opposed to intuiting "the God who avails us with truth." Should a derivative expect in reason to prove an a priori? Why should we expect any religion to teach us the truth within which God should be confined? Why should we expect anything more of a religion than that it avail us with a convenient reference by which adherents can communicate qualitative ideals they find to be of value to their context? Why should we expect religion about that which is unmeasurable to conform to the sort of quantitative strictures that we apply to that which is measurable? Isn't it enough that a religion avail us a frame of figurative reference, or a baseline of language and parables, by which to communicate about qualitative values? Must every word describe a measurable existent in order for that word to be morally useful?

If there does abide a system of morality that is indifferent to "God," I would suppose it should help us to promote sustainable civilization that avails decent respect for each person's freedom of expression and enterprise. If so, various questions are still begged, including: Should that system be availed only to pilgrims who volunteer for it; should those pilgrims, by force or cunning, export that system; should proponents of any alternative system have a "moral right" to undermine or overthrow that system; and who should qualify as a "person" to be protected under any such system?

Still, above all, there lurks a higher question: Why should any person subjectively presume that any moral system (whether based in religious parables or in secular empiricism) that he/she happens to favor "should" be taught or legislated so as to objectively control any other person? IOW, does any moral system carry any objective validity? Unless there is some way to expand the subjective field of one's own system to consider that it should be shared by others, how can any such system be considered to constitute more than an ad hoc set of whims or dreams of the moment?

Speaking of dreams (and considering the movie, Inception), I wonder when it may be "moral" for one to impose one's subjective dreams upon others, in effect, to force one's personal dreams into an objective reality to be shared by others?

Notice how dreams, no matter how preposterous, often seem real during their course. How is that? Well, their reality is tested against their ground of being. During their course, there is no conscious being but that of the dreamer, who alone defines the ground of being. It is only when the dream becomes inconsistent with the unfolding "architecture" as it is being defined by the dreamer that the dreamer realizes he is dreaming, and then he may consciously decide to end the dream and redirect his senses to the external world.

As to what we take to be the external, real world, its ground of being is defined in shared association with every awakened perspective of consciousness. So how is it that every particular perspective, when awake, measurably and objectively shares in the same ground of being? Well, one way to conceptualize an explanation is to conceptualize that each of us is but an organization of immeasurably tiny "particles" of condensate from one and the same field of consciousness. Insofar as the same field is defining our ground of being, we sense that we share the same ground. Indeed, the fact that we so measurably and objectively share the same ground of being leads many of us to presume that ground is independent, even independent of its sponsoring field of consciousness.

Notice that my conceptualization depends on organizations of ultimate particles, each of which expresses a quality of consciousness, but that is, convenient to my model, quantitatively too tiny to be subjected to individual objective measure. So long as a modeler seeks to provide a complete and mathematically measureable map of objective reality, this will never satisfy! Only when a modeler begins to apprehend the rainbow-receding quality for limits of math and objectivity will he begin to consider that the qualitative may "really" be superior to the quantitative, i.e., that "being conscious" may be reasonably conceptualized as being superior to, and prior to, "being measured."