Hello Everybody!
In response to the overwhelming interest that has been displayed on the Religious Discussions thread, I would like to examine what I perceive to be the underlying issue of this ongoing debate. Although I believe all ideas have merit and discussion stimulates the mind, at the end of the day, the result resembles a puppy chasing its tail. The nature of existence IS humanity’s greatest mystery and has been the source of endless debate and conflict throughout history. I make no pretense of answering those endless questions in the following nor do I suppose myself to be a guru in the understanding of reality per se. The following is nothing more than the musings of an eternally curious man’s quest for understanding. So without further ado, let’s see if we can peel back the skin of that onion and get to the core. Hopefully we will find truth waiting there.
What Is Reality?
Reality is a function of your perception. Perception is a process of consciousness. These truths are obvious to all. The debate resides in the differences between one individual’s perception, the perceptions of a group and the perception of all conscious entities combined.
At one end of the spectrum we have the perception of one individual. For him or her, their reality is all that matters. If we should suppose that there is no afterlife and at death consciousness “turns off” like a light switch, then at the moment of death the universe ceases to exist for that individual. You could say, “no, that individual ceases to exist.” But to that individual, while they were alive their very consciousness was, by default, a necessary part of the universe that they perceived, being required in order to perceive it and self. They were intrinsically “bound” together, so to speak. When they died, it died also. So for them and for all intents and purposes, the universe no longer exists. We can say then, that for the 6 billion or so residents of this planet, there are no less than an equivalent number of realities.
Somewhere in the middle of this spectrum we have the perception of a group of individuals. Their numbers matter not, so long as they are more than the one and less than the whole. To them, an agreed upon reality exists, albeit, the degree of agreement may be greater or lesser. An example may be that “Republicans believe in conservative government.” Some may agree to this statement strongly while others to a lesser degree, yet they all agree to some general degree.
Then there are the perceptions of the whole (if there is such a thing). An example would be that we all believe the earth exhibits the property of gravity and that water is wet. To the degree that an individual or group departs from the perceptions of the whole or even the majority, to that same degree we assign a level of “madness.”
In all of this, we can come to visualize some sort of underlying unity of perception that, upon any given instance, can be either tightly bound or so loosely bound as to be almost imperceptible itself. Depending on the degree of “madness” that an individual or group is assigned, we are known to say that that person or group “lives in their own private universe.”
If we were to assign a metaphorical representation of this underlying unity, we could visualize it as a sort of “framework” or “matrix.” This “matrix” would consist of “nodes” with each node representing an individual’s perception of reality. These nodes would interconnect with others by “lines of agreed upon perception,” wherein each node or person would be connected to every other, either very closely and strong or very distant and weak, determined by the degree to which they agree upon the nature of any given issue or purported fact. This “degree of agreement” has the potential to extend to every facet of existence, but in our present reality this is obviously far from the case.
So now we have what I choose to call a “Universal Perception Matrix.” This matrix can be visualized to a fairly accurate degree by comparing it to the X-Ray diffraction pattern of atoms aligned within a crystalline structure. Each atom is strongly bound to the ones closest to it and to ones further away to a lesser and lesser degree. This analogy has a certain weakness in that one can say that any atom that is not directly connected to one residing next to itself is not really connected to the others. In the Universal perception Matrix, all nodes do connect to all others to some degree as long as any given node actually resides within the universe, whatever its limits. I admit this failing of the model but it is as close as I can come up with.
Stepping back to look at the bigger picture, we can see that we are all bound together through the processes of consciousness and perception. If we are determined to be insane, the link is weak except with regards to others of like madness. If we are sane, a stronger bond of universal perception binds us to others. What becomes apparent is that the unifying force involved is consciousness itself. We are by default; animate matter possessing self-awareness while perceiving others of similar perception and in-animate matter as well. All of this is self evident but not necessarily obvious.
The great question is simply this: What is the origin and nature of consciousness? Further; what would become of the physical universe (in-animate matter) if every living organism that possesses any form of consciousness were to be extinguished, or better yet, to never have existed nor ever will? Would the universe (planets, stars, etc.) cease to exist? Logic and reason says that this can’t possibly be true. We know that matter possesses an intrinsic form of existence. But if there is no observer to perceive it, nor has there ever been nor ever will be one (one is all that is required), what form does this existence take? If there is no observer, what vocabulary can we use to describe the existence of anything if the very definition of reality lies in the process of perception!
It seems that we have come to a dead end. We know that the universe would exist without us but such existence has no meaning. It cannot be discussed except hypothetically and even that process requires consciousness on the part of the participants. We can’t make ourselves go away and then talk about what it would be like if we weren’t here!
I would suggest that the universe requires and in fact, does possess, at least one primary observer. This observer is the source of all consciousness throughout this same universe and is the very Author of the Universal Perception Matrix. This same Author created the matrix by extending consciousness to individual “nodes” or members of the matrix. The Author’s divine nature was to extend such consciousness to the individual nodes as an extension of His own, as opposed to a distinctly separate form for each. The nature of this consciousness is identical to His own, but endowed with a unique identity and freedom of thought that is rooted in an identical form of creativity and free will.
In essence we are His children and He is God. And the consciousness extended to us by this “God” is the root of collective agreement concerning the nature of reality wherein such agreement exists. In matters of disagreement, such disagreements originate within the individual node or nodes that, through isolated thought processes, freely disassociate themselves and their own thought processes from the Universal Mind that is the source of all consciousness and unity.
So…if you disagree with me, either I’m wrong or you’re wrong or we’re both wrong. How can we know the truth of the matter? If we can find a way to “tap into” the Universal Mind of God, then we can know within ourselves what truth is. But seeing that we are each an individual node within the matrix and not the source, we cannot directly transfer that knowledge. This is because knowledge that defines “understanding” in any form actually only stimulates an experience to take place within the realm and processes of our minds. We cannot transfer an experience, only information about an experience.
All communication is a process of transformation of information about an experience. It is not a transformation of the experience itself. Playback of a musical recording is a transformation of information. It is not the original musical experience. Information has the potential to initiate an experience though. A very good sound system and recording can “stimulate” an experience resembling the original, but the actual process takes place in the mind. Also, all language is metaphor, it is not the “thing” itself. Language can “lead” a person to an experience but cannot directly generate one.
If an experience directly relates to the physical realm, that in a way is considered to be of a more “common” nature, the ability of communication to stimulate an experience in another person has a greater likelihood of success. If I tell you that it’s 20 below zero outside my house and you have experienced cold weather before, you may “shudder at the thought of it.” If I tell you God spoke to me last night, you’re very likely to think I’m crazy. That’s because matters of spirit, by default, are not directly associated to the more common experiences of the physical universe. Therefore, I cannot stimulate in you the “understanding” of my experience through simple communication.
Such experience lies beyond the “natural” world that is common to all. If you know that I am a reasonable person though, you may begin to wonder if such an experience is possible for you. Again, I cannot make you “hear” God’s voice, but you may be able to find a way to hear Him for yourself. Your decision to try is based partially on my ability to communicate to you or “convince you” that my experience was real. The other part of that decision is based on your willingness to accept what I have communicated as being my experience of “truth.” If you should choose not to do that, then any effort on my part will be of no consequence. Even if you do, the experience is yours alone. If you hear God’s voice it is not my doing, if you do not, I could not have been the one to prevent it.
To sum up, your reality is yours alone, but you are not alone in reality. If you find truth it belongs to you, but you can share it without suffering loss. If you think you know something then maybe you do, but you can’t directly prove it to me if I’m not listening. Then again, I can’t remove it from your mind either. What we can do is let go of our opinions and search for truth together. If we are of like spirit in that regard, we will grow and know together.
-Bob
