Illusions opinions reality

@kellyjay said
Doesn't almost everything good come with coffee, or something is missing? 🙂

Would you agree that the coffee itself exists, irrespective of what we might perceive, but that the quality of the coffee (its goodness) is subject to our personal opinion and preferences? (Which may even change over time and in differing societies).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Would you agree that the coffee itself exists, irrespective of what we might perceive, but that the quality of the coffee (its goodness) is subject to our personal opinion and preferences? (Which may even change over time and in differing societies).

All I know is I like coffee hot, I like coffee cold, I like coffee over ice, in candy, in the morning, in the after noon, and in the evening when I shouldn't be drinking coffee. 🙂

@caljust said
Not to labour the point, Wolfgang, but when you talk about “a single reality” that “must exist” you are a victim of the myth of the given.

You and ToO want to draw a distinction between perception and the real, actual reality that exists out there. That is the myth - even the imagined, true realty can only be conceived, or perceived by your consciousness, which is very li ...[text shortened]... this concept is difficult to explain without going into detail iinto the preceding 150 or so pages.

But I admit that this concept is difficult to explain without going into detail iinto the preceding 150 or so pages.

Please explain it. I read what you posted earlier and read a few articles discussing Wilber's theory, so you don't need to explain basics of the four quadrants. Nothing I read seemed to speak of there being no distinction between perception of reality and reality itself.

@thinkofone said

Please explain it. I read what you posted earlier and read a few articles discussing Wilber's theory, so you don't need to explain basics of the four quadrants. Nothing I read seemed to speak of there being no distinction between perception of reality and reality itself.

I’ll give it my best shot. They say to understand something better yourself, you should try to explain it to somebody else.

KW is said to be one of the foremost living philosophers and thinkers in the US today - whether Christian or non-Christian - and his views are certainly interesting. So Wolfgang shouldn't really be so dismissive.

If you already understand the four quadrants, then you should also know about the Developmental Lines in each quadrant and the Levels, or Stages in each of those Lines.

The first thing to emphasise is that all four quadrants make up Reality, not just the Upper Right. One of the reasons for our confusion in these last two or three posts could be that you and Wolfgang seem to see reality as purely the second quadrant, i.e. the IT. That is best investigated by science and tells us the nature of the physical universe. That, I agree, is not affected by perception (leaving quantum effects aside).

But is that all the we mean by “reality” on this forum? Surely not.
We must include all the aspects of society, which are art, morals, and science. Or self, culture, and nature. Or the Good, the Beautiful and the True.

If you accept the developmental stages in levels of consciousness from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to integral-perspective, then you will agree that at each stage reality changes: there isn’t a pregiven world waiting for all and sundry to see.

Different phenomenological worlds – real worlds – come into being with each new level of consciousness. (Systems Theory, for example, which comes into existence around integral-perspective simply cannot be seen by mythic or lower levels. )

Different worlds are brought forth by the structures of consciousness doing the perceiving and co-creating.

But I hasten to add that I am not emotionally invested in this model, and anyone is free to choose what they wish to believe. I am not going to argue KW's case. All I can say is that I have found it very helpful to understand how everything fits together.

@caljust said
I’ll give it my best shot. They say to understand something better yourself, you should try to explain it to somebody else.

KW is said to be one of the foremost living philosophers and thinkers in the US today - whether Christian or non-Christian - and his views are certainly interesting. So Wolfgang shouldn't really be so dismissive.

If you already understand the four ...[text shortened]... case. All I can say is that I have found it very helpful to understand how everything fits together.

One of the reasons for our confusion in these last two or three posts could be that you and Wolfgang seem to see reality as purely the second quadrant, i.e. the IT.

Quote excerpts from my posts that lead you to draw this conclusion.

We must include all the aspects of society, which are art, morals, and science. Or self, culture, and nature. Or the Good, the Beautiful and the True.

If you accept the developmental stages in levels of consciousness from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to integral-perspective, then you will agree that at each stage reality changes: there isn’t a pregiven world waiting for all and sundry to see.

Different phenomenological worlds – real worlds – come into being with each new level of consciousness. (Systems Theory, for example, which comes into existence around integral-perspective simply cannot be seen by mythic or lower levels. )

Different worlds are brought forth by the structures of consciousness doing the perceiving and co-creating.

Using phrasing such as "developmental stages in levels of consciousness", "Different worlds are brought forth by the structures of consciousness doing the perceiving", etc. seem to indicate changes in perception. How is this reasonably not the case?

How is it not more reasonable to frame it that as perceptions change, an individuals perceptions of reality changes?: "...there isn’t a pregiven world waiting for all and sundry to see"? "co-creating?

@thinkofone said

Quote excerpts from my posts that lead you to draw this conclusion.

How is it not more reasonable to frame it that as perceptions change, an individuals perceptions of reality changes?

As to your first remark below, I am referring to the fact that you take reality as fixed, and only our perceptions changing.

Of the four quadrants, only the Upper Right, i.e. the External view, or the IT, remains constant. That is why I said that it seems to me that if we take reality to mean the physical universe ONLY, then your statements are correct.

Of course, as we progress from magic to mythic to rational etc, our perceptions do change - that is the whole point!

But what KW maintains is that the lower levels (for example the magic and mythic levels, which are populated on RHP by people like sonship, KellyJay and others) CANNOT SEE the higher levels (such as the rational and trans-rational), in fact their reality is totally different from those at the higher levels.

Now if you want to maintain that there is only the ONE, true reality, then you are making a statement based on your own level of development.

I don’t think I can explain it any better, and perhaps I am not doing his text any justice, but I really don’t want to thrash this to death.

It may be more useful (perhaps) to discuss another contention of KW, which is that whilst the other organs of society, i.e. art, science and culture, have developed during the past few centuries up the Consciousness levels from archaic to magic to mythic to rational it is only the fourth pillar of society, which is Spirituality, which has (by and large) remained behind at the magic and mythic levels.

@caljust said
As to your first remark below, I am referring to the fact that you take reality as fixed, and only our perceptions changing.

Of the four quadrants, only the Upper Right, i.e. the External view, or the IT, remains constant. That is why I said that it seems to me that if we take reality to mean the physical universe ONLY, then your statements are correct.

Of course, as we ...[text shortened]... ety, which is Spirituality, which has (by and large) remained behind at the magic and mythic levels.

Do you use levels when wanting to check to see if something is level or do you just use your perceptions?

@kellyjay said
Do you use levels when wanting to check to see if something is level or do you just use your perceptions?

So it's OK for you to ask me questions, but you refuse to answer any that I ask you?

@caljust said
As to your first remark below, I am referring to the fact that you take reality as fixed, and only our perceptions changing.

Of the four quadrants, only the Upper Right, i.e. the External view, or the IT, remains constant. That is why I said that it seems to me that if we take reality to mean the physical universe ONLY, then your statements are correct.

Of course, as we ...[text shortened]... ety, which is Spirituality, which has (by and large) remained behind at the magic and mythic levels.

As to your first remark below, I am referring to the fact that you take reality as fixed, and only our perceptions changing.

This is yet another unfounded assertion which - even worse - you're attempting to use to prop up your previous unfounded assertion. I never said that it's "reality is fixed". Once again quote excerpts from my posts that lead you to draw this conclusion.

Now if you want to maintain that there is only the ONE, true reality, then you are making a statement based on your own level of development.

If you believe that multiple realities exist, then by all means present a cogent argument to back it up.

I don’t think I can explain it any better, and perhaps I am not doing his text any justice, but I really don’t want to thrash this to death.

Of course, the reason you're having so much difficulty in articulating a reasonable position might be because your position is incoherent. If it were coherent, you wouldn't need to repeatedly make unfounded assertions about what I think in your attempts to present it.

@ThinkOfOne
For goodness sake, ToO, let’s drop this thing.

This was the quote of yours I referred to:

Nothing I read seemed to speak of there being no distinction between perception of reality and reality itself.

I took that to mean that to you there IS a distinction between perception and reality. And I assumed (maybe wrongly) that this meant (to you) that perceptions were relative and reality absolute. Please forgive me if I made an incorrect assumption here.

I am not making any assertions or claims or trying to convince anybody of anything.

I made it very clear that this is Ken Wilber’s theory and model. I tried to merely paraphrase in my own words what (I think) he said in his 200-odd page book. In fact, most of my first and second post on this issue were direct quotes from his book.

I also said that the model makes sense to me and I like it. You don’t like it, so jolly good show.

I give up - I yield - you are right - I am wrong. Reality is exactly what you say it is.

@caljust said
So it's OK for you to ask me questions, but you refuse to answer any that I ask you?

I responded to everything you said, I went back to see if I missed anything. If you think I did correct me.

@kellyjay said
I responded to everything you said, I went back to see if I missed anything. If you think I did correct me.

It was April 6, page 2, and repeated later that same day, page 3.

@caljust said
It was April 6, page 2, and repeated later that same day, page 3.

I responded to both of those. What is it you think I didn’t address?

@kellyjay said
I responded to both of those. What is it you think I didn’t address?

YAWN.
You do this all the time.

You never answer anything.

@wolfgang59 said
YAWN.
You do this all the time.

You never answer anything.

Difficult to answer what isn't specifically addressed?