If reality is subjective, what about other beings in it?

[Pouya]

I understand why objectivity is a shared imagination to explain materialism. I understand that only thing there is is subjectivity, pure being.

But when we try to make someone else understand it, we use their point of view as an absolute and say "you are what is"

And yeah in the absolute sense your point of view is mine and vise versa. But how does this really work ?

Are there infinite minds inside infinite minds? Is reality that I experience being imagined by someone else and I imagine someone else's reality?

This doesn't make sense with infinity. Infinity can only be one. If there were 2 infinities, they wouldn't be infinite.

 

[Pouya]

What I'm ultimately saying is:

What about the subjective expeirences of other beings in my subjective experience?

Maybe all there is is me and their subjective expeirence doesn't exist?

Edited December 26, 2019 by Pouya

[SoonHei]

This being SoonHei which appears as an other being in your subjective experience confirms that I have a subjective experience of my own.

Of course reading this is not much help. But if your exp was the one and only, would that not be a very tiny mind vs infinite mind which dreams up an infinite experiences simultaneously?

 

What you are is nothing. How many types of nothings can there be. Only one type.

There's only ONE nothing which is everything and every experience simultaneously.

 

"Experience"

 

[Nivsch]

1 hour ago, Pouya said:

What I'm ultimately saying is:

What about the subjective expeirences of other beings in my subjective experience?

Maybe all there is is me and their subjective expeirence doesn't exist?

Every one has subjective experience.

You, Me, SoonHei.

And yes, there are infinite infinities.

An apple is infinite because you can zoom in inside it forever. Science thinks its "only" until planck length 10^-34 ?‍♂️

Edited December 26, 2019 by Nivsch

[Gnosis]

As someone who has contemplated this question on many occasions, my suggestion for you is to change your approach to this question.

You cannot answer this question through logical deduction.

If you were to recognize the Absolute in this moment, the question itself would become irrelevant.

In that realization, one of the things you may recognize is that your "subjective experience" IS the "subjective experience" of "other people", therefore it makes no sense to even ask the question in the first place.

In other words, to ask the question in the first place, implies not having seen the Truth clearly enough (I'm sounding a bit like Leo here).

Unfortunately, that's the only answer I've ever found to this question - namely, that the question itself is poorly constructed (I find that this result comes up quite often).

[Gnosis]

I would like add a deeper dimension to my answer as it could still be easily misunderstood - both the terms "subjective experience" and "other people" are entirely misleading terms.

It should be understood that there are no "other beings" as it is conceived; that is, the "other beings" your mind is conceiving of (and appropriating sense perceptions to those conceptions), have no existence. Without the conception of "other beings", any Being/s/Non-Being/s is Being/s/Non-Being/s.

There is no "subjective experience" and such a thing is not possible; that is, there is non-differentiated Happening which cannot be attributed to a subject.

As such, to ask the question of whether "other beings" have a "subjective experience", is to ask if an imaginary object has an imaginary experience.

In other words, if you are imagining there are "other beings", there they are as your imagination.

If you are imagining also that those same imagined beings have their own experience of some kind, there it is as your imagination.

The question is essentially asking if a virtual partition of sense perception has a "subjective experience" of its own.

The mind appropriates the sense perceptions into an imaginary separate identity and is self-deluded into believing that the question is concerning an actual separate independently existing identity, to avoid seeing that the question is concerning a non-separate sense perception, because such a question is then absurd.

If you are asking, but really, do other beings have this experience, then you are still not understanding the issue.

If there are any Being/s/Non-Being/s (and I/You know there are Being/s/Non-Being/s because we/I/You are Being/s/Non-Being/S), then Being/s/Non-Being/s is non-differentiated Happening, which is identical to Being/s/Non-Being/s.

Obviously, this cannot be symbolized in language. In fact, the mind cannot touch Truth. The most that the mind can do is secure its own defeat.

[purerogue]

4 minutes ago, Gnosis said:

In fact, the mind cannot touch Truth. The most that the mind can do is secure its own defeat.

Interesting right, to bad that ignorance is so strong and so hard to see trough. 

[Gnosis]

5 minutes ago, purerogue said:

Interesting right, to bad that ignorance is so strong and so hard to see trough. 

Both luckily and unluckily, we're very persistent animals.

Seeing through ignorance is just the beginning of the beginning.

Even seeing Truth is only the significantly shorter half of the journey; there's still so much more I can only intuit and personally have no direct experience with.

Objectively speaking, probably nowhere near as long as one can be lost in ignorance. But I can say that at least the feeling experience is a sense that I've only just began.

Seeing through ignorance seems hard, until it's no longer possible for you to Not see through ignorance.