otiosedodge wrote:Hi everyone,
I've been thinking a lot recently about the following statement, which is bandied about a lot in so-called New Age circles, namely, that we create our own reality. And I think I've found a proof of this statement which is as rigorous as possible. I don't claim that it's absolute truth, because I don't think that absolute truth is within our capacity at the moment. Perhaps it never will be. But in any case, that's another issue. I simply believe that this proof is a reasonable “best guess”. I'll jump right in.
I set the argument up by making a case for the limitations of thought in capturing material reality. Thoughts, in my opinion, are digital by nature, in that they represent reality through a series of “yes” and “no” assertions. Reality, on the other hand, is analog; it ultimately has no seams other than those which we assign to it.
Let me illustrate this with two examples, one building on the other. The first is rooted in classical Buddhist philosophy, from the Madhyamaka school. Imagine you're in elementary school, and your teacher is teaching you the alphabet for the first time. He/she draws an “A” on the board, points to it, and says that it's an “A”. Now, if you're one of the students, my question is, what did you see on the board before he/she told you it was an “A”? Maybe you had the words “triangle” or “line” in your lexicon, so maybe you saw something similar to a triangle or three lines that crossed each other. In other words, you defined that slice of space (or space-time, if you're up on your physics) as a weird triangle or three lines, depending on what your toolkit of mental labels contained at that point. Because our notions of things are really just that: mental labels. They're taught to us by our parents, or whoever, and then we stick them onto pieces of reality and hold them to be what we call them. And of course, words like “pieces” and “reality” and “stick onto” are also mental labels. There's no thought that isn't a mental label, when you get right down to it.
Now for the second example, to drive the point home. Let's say you're looking at a tree. Now zoom in and look at a branch and where it springs from the tree, the bark of the tree. Here we have two distinct parts of the tree, right? The branch and the bark. Again, I hold that these are digital distinctions for an analog phenomenon. Some of you more sciency types may say that the branch and the bark are distinguishable by their different molecular structures. But I counter with this: where do we draw the line? Is there a clear dividing line between what is considered bark and what is considered branch? Nature itself certainly doesn't provide it. One merges into the other. And while we can make approximations about where that dividing line is, ultimately, we can't really measure it precisely, since on the subatomic level, everything is a question probability. So, again, as Alan Watts would say nature is “wiggly”, and everything we use to measure nature (including our thoughts, our mental categories) is ultimately “yes” or “no”, or digital.
So, how does this fit in with the assertion that we create our own reality? Well, it comes down to the fact that once we get rid of this urge to classify in a digital manner, through a sort of conceptual bootstrapping, we realize that we are the entire universe. Think of it this way: I said that nature is by definition “wiggly”, and I think I've provided ample evidence of this in the previous paragraphs. Again, I don't claim that this is gospel truth, but given the evidence, I think it's our “best guess”. So, if nature (read: the universe, which obviously includes us) is really free of mental categories, if it's seamless, then we are a part of that seamless whole. Of course our deluded thoughts about the nature of reality, the ones I stated above, are also part of that seamless whole; if we observe these thoughts, as we are obviously able to do, and don't attach any meaning to them, then they would just be energy forms. (I'm not claiming that anyone is fully capable of doing this; I think that some delusion may always be present. I'm merely showing that these thoughts can also fit into this view of reality.) That is, they are mere electromagnetic impulses in our brain, more of the seamless, spontaneous play of what we call the universe. Of course, I realize that “electromagnetic impulse” is another mental label. Language, since it's a reflection of conceptual thought, has limitations in terms of what it can describe. However, there is a possibility of “bootstrapping” here, which is what I've been trying to do so far.
In any case, back to my assertion that we are the universe. If we free ourselves, at least through logic, if not through constant practice, from the notion that the universe has any “seams”, any categories, then isn't it logical to arrive at the conclusion that we are, in fact, the universe? We're definitely a “part” of it. We're not separate from it. And if there are no real seams, no real separation, if it's all one, and we're “part” of it, then we're it. As Alan Watts would say, we're “the works”. The illusion of separation is just the result of deluded thoughts that slice and dice reality into digital “parts”.
And if you're still on board so far, then there's only one more thing to do to complete the argument. The original assertion that I was trying to prove was “you create your own reality”. I've striven to prove, so far, that we are the universe. So by simple substitution, substitute “the universe” for “you” in the statement “you create your own reality”. You get “the universe creates its own reality”. I don't think anyone can argue with that statement.
Pretty nifty, huh?
And I really think that the applications of this are astounding. I really think it's just a question of people being convinced that they create their own reality, and overcoming the doubts (conscious and unconscious) that keep them from creating the reality that they want.
The only proviso that I would add is that everyone is the universe, and everyone has free will (my intuition), so the only real limitations of this universe-creating capacity is when it impinges on the free will of another “universe-being”.
In any case, I'd love any feedback on this. I'm still driving it into my mind, and defending it or unpacking it further (or being convinced otherwise) would definitely be beneficial.
It seems to me that perspective widens one's options for how to respond to events in our lives, the less perspective we have, the less free we will experience in ourselves and our lives. In this sense, though observing our inner experiences moment by moment, we can widen our perspectives on a given situation, therefore we can behave in a more flexible, spontaneous, creative manner in response to life. This is arguably not "free will" in an abstract absolute sense or creativity, but frankly who cares. If it feels acts and is experienced as a duck, it's a duck.