"You're Imagining X" - How broadly can this be applied?

[DrugsBunny]

Been quietly following this community for a while, much to my frustration, as there seems to be a consistent lack of logical backing for significant ontological claims; just blind deference to spiritual hearsay. Leo seems to commonly defer to a pretty unsatisfying assertion to address metaphysical inquiries: "You're imagining X".

Okay, fine. But what if I were to assume this for literally any and all conceptual notions? Could it be said that even the actual distinction between solipsism and mutual sentience is imaginary, and what exactly would this imply? Is there any point at which there is no utility in assuming this postulation? Shouldn't I be able to say that the distinction between imagination and objective reality is imaginary? You must see that I am essentially rendering the term meaningless at this point.

When describing the metaphysical process of intelligent conjuring which allegedly creates reality under this epistemic framework, I find the term "imagination" to be a bit deceptive, or definitionally frivolous (for admittedly underdeveloped reasons, mind you — it is obviously conceivable that this may in fact be the best term for what is metaphysically taking place). Intuitively, it seems that such a term is too easily conflated with a sort of nebulous lack of substantive existence, which is how I generally interpret "imaginary" in this context. For instance, "You're imagining other people" implies that other people do not exist, but If I were to assert this claim as flippantly as I see it used in this community, I could invoke the same postulation to affirm the opposite implication, for instance, "You're imagining that other people are imaginary" would essentially mean that other people DO exist.

Can somebody actually provide a non-frivolous answer to the inquiry of whether it can be said that the distinction between solipsism and widespread consciousness is imaginary, and what this would even mean? My best guess would be: "Everything is imaginary, thus even distinctions between real vs imaginary can also be said to be imaginary if we assume a recursive instantiation of imagination which defies logical intuition", but this is just a guess, which is what I tend to see on this forum, except there will be no admitting that ones claims are conjectures.

I genuinely want this explained as if I were an autistic 5 year old. Explain why I should even lend merit to you. If it isn't clear, I tend to see the majority of this forum as hapless followers, so I am really just trying to appeal only to the brainy scientific crowd here, which my saying will undoubtedly evoke the appeal of the exact opposite, so I have little hope of an effective answer, but maybe somebody will surprise me.

[RMQualtrough]

Lol @ your username and avatar, very nice. Imagination = horrible term. Consciousness = horrible term too to a large extent... A better word is "creation". We are pure creation itself.

In fact you can't STOP creating no matter how hard you try. If you stopped creating any objects then there is nothing to be aware OF, and just nothingness by itself, which is not experienced, and thus a time skip like a coma until experience begins again.

Since you are talking scientifically then you know that everything you experience is not the actual world but the product of your brain... So for example you aren't actually seeing a tree as it really is, you are seeing a representation of it manufactured within the mind. So a science class explanation is like, photons bounce off the object, enter your eye, the signal is sent to your brain, the brain interprets the signal and renders an image. THE IMAGE IS THE THING YOU KNOW.

Hence your entire experience of reality is entirely subjective...

And then you will be thinking people could be wrong about objective reality. A person in psychosis could be seeing floating pink elephants, and nobody else can see the pink elephants. So they are "wrong" about consensus reality... That's not the element being explored, it's moreso what "objective reality" is made of. What physical matter of any kind is made of. Which is ultimately nothing which could ever logically be a tangible material substance of any kind... And you can find directly the nothingness which is consciousness. See "Sunyata" and its explanations for the inherent nothingness of "pure consciousness" as it were...

[RMQualtrough]

I think I missed the crux of your question by the way. Can it be phrased another way? Or maybe I did write something meaningful who knows...

[PepperBlossoms]

you're imagining x can be applied to everything and can be applied to nothing.

[DrugsBunny]

19 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

I think I missed the crux of your question by the way. Can it be phrased another way? Or maybe I did write something meaningful who knows...

TL;DR - "You're imagining X" is seemingly too frequently applied. Should this also be applied to even abstract conceptions? The distinction between imaginary and real, is that imaginary? What does this imply? Notice I can invoke this postulation to assert opposite implications: "You are imagining other people" vs "You are imagining other people are imaginary". If the distinction between solipsism and mutual consciousness is imaginary, can it be said that other people are real? At what point is there no longer utility in asserting this notion?

26 minutes ago, PepperBlossoms said:

you're imagining x can be applied to everything and can be applied to nothing.

You must have missed when I asked: 

 

1 hour ago, DrugsBunny said:

Can somebody actually provide a non-frivolous answer to the inquiry of whether it can be said that the distinction between solipsism and widespread consciousness is imaginary, and what this would even mean? My best guess would be: "Everything is imaginary, thus even distinctions between real vs imaginary can also be said to be imaginary if we assume a recursive instantiation of imagination which defies logical intuition", but this is just a guess, which is what I tend to see on this forum, except there will be no admitting that ones claims are conjectures.

 

[VeganAwake]

There are apparent differences within the framework of being an external experiencer of all phenomena, but there are no real differences between anything.

There is just exactly what seems to be happening....very mysterious!

 

 

[RMQualtrough]

10 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

TL;DR - "You're imagining X" is seemingly too frequently applied. Should this also be applied to even abstract conceptions? The distinction between imaginary and real, is that imaginary? What does this imply? Notice I can invoke this postulation to assert opposite implications: "You are imagining other people" vs "You are imagining other people are imaginary". If the distinction between solipsism and mutual consciousness is imaginary, can it be said that other people are real? At what point is there no longer utility in asserting this notion?

I feel like this might be a linguistical riddle somehow...

You want to know if other people are real? Probably you would have to first springboard into what real means to you, and also what element of your own self is real... Your own self can be seen to be an appearance taking place within the screen rather than the screen itself, e.g. you are only made up of present experience. There's no actual solid tangible thing that is you which you can ever grab hold of. Your thoughts now change, your sight, sounds, all of these things change. There's a backdrop to these things which is by itself totally nothing at all, which you call "your consciousness".

Did you exist on your 10th birthday party? It isn't currently appearing on that screen within apparent time but you'd probably say so... And what about me, my experience is not appearing within that screen in apparent time either... What's the difference between you on your 10th birthday and me writing this message? The only difference is the ego and memory which takes the recording of your 10th birthday and says "yes I remember that so it was me"... You would call it solipsistic if only "your" experiences happened (like your past birthdays) even though the only thing tying them to you in reality is memory and ego.

There is no more reason to distrust your existence as there is to distrust the existence of myself 5 minutes ago. There is nothing more real about you compared to me, nothing is really within a past/present/future framework. Now is not a moment within time, time appears and moves through it. All elements of me right now in the "present" are also appearances on that screen of inherent nothingness.

The most "aware" you can be is when you are completely dissolved into the NON-moment called "now". Unlike the material delay between light entering your eyes and the mind producing an image, there is no delay between awareness and now. They are the same thing. And that is infinity.

I didn't know how to discuss the linguistical issue (which seems like saying "how can nothing exist when the two words contradict", where language is used as though it were mathematic). Hopefully something within this wall was useful though.

[Osaid]

How broadly can it be applied? Anything outside of direct experience must be imagined, because it is outside of your direct experience. It's that simple. If something isn't in your direct experience, then it has to be imagined, and so your direct experience of it is just an imagination of it.

5 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

"You're imagining other people" implies that other people do not exist

They do exist, as imagination. It's a recontextualization. First you believe that your imagination is something other than imagination, and then you realize it is just imagination and nothing else. Basically, seeing it for what it is.

5 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

"You're imagining that other people are imaginary"

Yes, I am imagining that, and rightfully so, as "others" are indeed imagined. Just because I imagine something, that doesn't mean that thing is invalidated. There's nothing wrong with imagining things. It is delusional, however, to see imagination as something other than imagination. "Others are imaginary" is simply an observation. "You're imagining that other people are imaginary" is also an observation which is true. "Others are not imaginary" is an observation of something that is not observed, but rather it is only imagined to be observed. In other words, they are imagining that imagination is something other than imagination, which is delusion. You can imagine things which are accurate to your experience, and things that are not accurate to your experience. You can even imagine that "imagination is imagination", which is accurate. Or, you can imagine that "imagination is not imagination", which is clearly inaccurate to your experience. We are just trying to use imagination to accurately point to our direct experience, that's all. In this scenario we are using words, which are essentially symbols that make you imagine things.

The sentence "That apple is red" is a pointer to a direct experience of an apple that is red. The sentence "That apple is blue" is a pointer which points to something which is not experienced, and thus only exists as imagination. Notice that the second statement, although it only exists as imagination, it is trying to convey that it exists outside of imagination when in reality it doesn't. The idea that it exists outside of imagination is also something that is imagined. That's the nuance that's being pointed out when someone says something is imaginary.

It's not that imagining something is wrong or self-invalidating, it's that a lot of people can't tell imagination apart from what isn't imagination, which is why it might be repeated so much that certain things are imaginary.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Osaid

[Space]

@DrugsBunny The simple non frivolous answer here is that you're not going to get a satisfying answer through logical reasoning or thinking. What's being pointed to when someone says 'You're imagining X' is completely beyond logic and thinking! We can talk about it and discuss it, and i'm sure some more intelligent people than myself can provide some nice sounding rebuttals and counter points to what you're saying, but it's not going to be a true understanding without a direct consciousness of whats being pointed to. So you're best bet is to work towards having a direct consciousness of reality in whatever way you feel is most appropriate for you.

6 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

Okay, fine. But what if I were to assume this for literally any and all conceptual notions? Could it be said that even the actual distinction between solipsism and mutual sentience is imaginary, and what exactly would this imply? Is there any point at which there is no utility in assuming this postulation? Shouldn't I be able to say that the distinction between imagination and objective reality is imaginary? You must see that I am essentially rendering the term meaningless at this point.

Yes all conceptual notions are imagined. All distinctions are being created/imagined within the actuality of Infinity. Of course the disctinction between imagination and objective reality is imaginary. Because there is no objective reality. Objective reality IS imagination.

Quote

For instance, "You're imagining other people" implies that other people do not exist, but If I were to assert this claim as flippantly as I see it used in this community, I could invoke the same postulation to affirm the opposite implication, for instance, "You're imagining that other people are imaginary" would essentially mean that other people DO exist.

Like I said before, "You're imagining other people" is not some logical linear line of thinking that Leo or anyone else just came up with. It is based on actual direct consciousness experience of this truth. A radical shift in consciousness is required, not more thinking or postulating. 

All of this "You're imagining that other people are imaginary" is meaningless. This whole line of thinking is pointless and just moving you further away from whats being pointed to. It's literally a waste of time. I'm not saying this because as a cop-out or a way of avoiding your argument. It's just silly.

Quote

Can somebody actually provide a non-frivolous answer to the inquiry of whether it can be said that the distinction between solipsism and widespread consciousness is imaginary, and what this would even mean? My best guess would be: "Everything is imaginary, thus even distinctions between real vs imaginary can also be said to be imaginary if we assume a recursive instantiation of imagination which defies logical intuition", but this is just a guess, which is what I tend to see on this forum, except there will be no admitting that ones claims are conjectures.

What is 'widespread consciousness'?

Quote

I genuinely want this explained as if I were an autistic 5 year old. Explain why I should even lend merit to you. If it isn't clear, I tend to see the majority of this forum as hapless followers, so I am really just trying to appeal only to the brainy scientific crowd here, which my saying will undoubtedly evoke the appeal of the exact opposite, so I have little hope of an effective answer, but maybe somebody will surprise me.

You see, you say this as a way to avoid the truth of the situation. You don't want to do whats necessary to really understand true spirituality. Or maybe you are? I don't really know. You've just joined so I could be mistaken. 

To appeal only to the 'brainy scientific' crowd is assuming that these matters are brainy and scientific! Which they are fundamentally not! Just throw all this out. All this logic and thinking is useless. But I understand you're not going to accept this, and thats fine.

[Kksd74628]

@DrugsBunny

It is, because in this community people mix relative and absolute level perspectives with each other. If you would ask which football team is better Real Madrid or Barcelona some folks could come and say that they both are equally good, because they are imaginary or that they do the best they could. So the problem is that people try to answer question which is about content of situation with answer which is about structure.

When being in this forum you need to work your skills to spot troll answers like you are imagining that there is problem in that we use word imaginary and they laugh their ass off to you being confused . The reason people do that is, because they want to sound like mystic or some wise (wo)man, but actually they make themselfes look like total joke. Also it can be, because without humor spiritual work could be at times little bit boring so joke here and there does not hurt too much. 

So shortly there is no difference in absolute perspective, because everything is one based on concept of oneness, but at the same time there are diffences in relative level like some objects are blue colored and other red colored. In absolute level both objects and colors are just perceptions - so they are the same. For example I always try to answer as directly and without being too poetry, because it doesn't help no matter what others say, it just won't. People have this toxic mentality that when we confuse someone long enough (s)he will go and find the answer themself, but I don't think that is really mature approach.

With love -joNi-

Edited March 29, 2022 by Kksd74628

[Michael Jackson]

@DrugsBunny

Everything in reality is your (Gods) imagination. This includes physical objects like tables, chairs, other human beings, etc. Of course this also includes all concepts and distinctions you make within your mind, like the distinction between man, women, human, animal, etc.

[Nivsch]

@DrugsBunny A stage BLUE backlash disguising as a "turquoise" content. This is what is happening here with this rigid, unflexible, fearfull, deffensive, highly emotional solipsism trend.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Nivsch

[Gili Trawangan]

"You are imagining X" implies duality. There is a you and an object X that is being imagined. That's not truth.

That's also why imagination is not a good pointer, it immediately creates duality by implying the existence of an imaginer apart from what's being imagined.

Anyway, this is just being pedantic, because I agree with @Space , this is not something to understand logically - in fact, it defies logic altogether, it isn't logical. Truth has to be directly realized.

[Kksd74628]

@Gili Trawangan

People usually say that something is not logical when it does not match their worldview. Word logical is highly misunderstood to mean something which is easily understandable, but it depends about how accurate your current worldview is. Everything is logical which means it is consistent. If material world is logical to you then all spiritual things are illogical, but you need to remember that only the wrong worldview is illogical, because there are some assumptions that are here without any logical reason. Illogical and counter-intuitive (against common-sense) are different words.

[Nivsch]

@Kksd74628 It is just a circular logic which can't be proven or disproven.

If something is imaginary, there must be something else which is real. Otherwise the term "imaginary" has zero meaning.

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Nivsch

[Kksd74628]

@Nivsch

I agree! I only make distinction between what is happening right NOW - "real" - and what is not happening - imaginary. This present moment is the realest thing there is and thinking that there is something else is just a thought. When people make word imaginary include everything then the word doesn't make any sense. That is the reason I don't like non dual words in communicating these things, because it doesn't give any new information. In absolute context word "imaginary" is meant to mean that there is no ground and there is no reason for anything, because truth is that which doesn't need proof, because existence is proof for itself.

[Gili Trawangan]

@Kksd74628 Logic implies causation. In fact, it implies time. As in, if this happens then that happens. Truth has no such thing, therefore it isn't logical. 

[Kksd74628]

@Gili Trawangan

That is again about the definition of word logic, but what is logical is coherent reasoning. That reality doesn't need proving is actually logical, because if it would need a proof then also that proof would need proving and it would be groundless continuum or circular reasoning to itself. Only reason you think existence is illogical is, because you assume that everything needs to "start" from nothing, but that is only true in "human world", but who said that this must work exactly like that in absolute perspective?

Logic implies causation only, if you are scientific minded person, but who said that logic is same as science. Spiritual people don't like word logic, because they assosiate it with science which just assumes that everything can be proved externally, but they miss that paradox it makes that even proving needs more proving. As I said existence is its own internal proof and that is logical, because otherwise there would be this paradox. What I suggest is that actually everything can be explained logically and that you need direct experience over logical reasoning is itself logical. It's is logical to understand limitations of logicality.

[LastThursday]

7 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

"You're imagining X"

There's confusion all round here.

For a start what is "you" referring to here? I can sit here and imagine sitting on a beach drinking a mojito; when I stop imagining it goes away. But I can't sit here and imagine a solid gold bar into existence. But the phrase gets applied to all aspects of reality. So the "you" being referred to is not the conventional you in terms of hard cold existence. If I get hit by car, there's no way I'm imagining the bodily damage and hospitalisation that follows: it exists.

However, it's clear that you can be mistaken about reality. Maybe you think that shadow in an alleyway is a knife-wielding murderer, but it's just the shadow of a cat. Or you look at an optical illusion and see things that are not actually there.  So there is a sense in which a lot of reality is just imagination, whether consciously or unconsciously maintained. There's a lot of "filling in" of reality usually where information is lacking or ambiguous.

There is an assumption that imagination is a process "you" can control. This is where the word is misleading. When you tell someone "you're just imagining your OCD", this implies it's possible to actually stop imagining that second and the person is just "too attached". This is disingenuous. The word imagination shouldn't be used in these contexts.

So which you and what type of imagination is the phrase referring to? The whole phrase is too confusing and open to abuse. You can call existence itself imagination, but that doesn't add anything new, because "you" are not in control of it.

[Michael Jackson]

6 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

There is an assumption that imagination is a process "you" can control. This is where the word is misleading. When you tell someone "you're just imagining your OCD", this implies it's possible to actually stop imagining that second and the person is just "too attached". This is disingenuous. The word imagination shouldn't be used in these contexts.

@LastThursday

You ARE imagining your OCD. And yes, you could actually stop imagining that since you are God.

But you are thinking that you are an ego. And that as an ego you can stop imagining things. Of course not. And as God, you have 0 problems with OCD. In fact, you LOVE OCD, which is the reason why you imagined it in the first place.