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

[DrugsBunny]

I kind of regret opening this thread. It doesn't seem as if the actual intention of the inquiry is being addressed.

I wanted a discussion on whether the distinction of real/imaginary has any substantive meaning. I am obviously referring to Actualized's definition of ontological imagination, which is asserted to be a metaphysical process of intelligent conjuration that creates reality and shapes conscious experience, as consciousness is the fundamental building block of reality, and its content (your life/direct experience) is that which is being metaphysically imagined (basically God creation). This is clearly what was being referred to, but people have conflated this with ordinary human imagination... Other people are deferring to the very uninspired "logic won't suffice to address this" as if it's some brilliant observation and not a completely obvious consideration, so painfully obvious that I would have preemptively rebutted it in the OP if it weren't already too long.

An example of an acceptable answer that could satisfy the logical prerequisite could have been: Because everything in existence/consciousness is presupposed to be a form of metaphysical conjuration (or "imagination" as it's frivolously referred to in Actualized's framework), this concept would be entirely groundless, and it's application would have no limits. Abstract concepts like the distinction between imagination versus orthodox conceptions of objective reality can be said to also be metaphysically imaginary, which means the concept of metaphysical conjuration (imagination) can be self-reflexive. When you say "Metaphysical consciousness is imagining reality, and it is also imagining that it is imagining reality" you are invoking a recursive instantiation of imagination which does not change the implications of the original postulation, nor does it render the distinction of metaphysical imagination meaningless. If you say "Metaphysical consciousness is imagining that there is a real difference between solipsism and mutually experienced consciousness" it would seem as if you are saying that asynchronous isolated consciousness (solipsism) versus synchronous consciousness would be a meaningless distinction, but this is not necessarily accurate, because metaphysical imagination would be so fundamental to reality that even its paradoxical instantiations can be substantively real. If God is imagining the distinction between solipsism and its opposite, the distinction, having been metaphysically conjured, becomes real, and therefore, you are not actually rendering the term of "imagination" meaningless when applied in paradoxical ways. 

Of course, an answer like this is far too academically fastidious for it to be palatable to the woo-woo mystical schmystical crowd that Actualized attracts, but something like this is what I was asking for. Instead we have people like our friend and moderator @Space spewing their 2 cents with the following 5head banger:
 

On 3/29/2022 at 5:06 AM, Space said:

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.

To him this inquiry is just silly because he lacks the critical thinking skills to see the merit in asking such a question. It is entirely possible that the existence of such a paradoxical application of the term "imaginary" would conceivably render it meaningless, in which case it would have significant implications because nobody should fear solipsism any longer, because it's distinction from synchronous consciousness would be meaningless. I just love being called silly by people who lack the cognitive means to even properly interpret what I am trying to address.

@SOUL

1 hour ago, SOUL said:

People who are magical minded, whether it be the new age mystic or the religious adherent, takes what is a kernel of fact and exaggerates it to the extreme degree then declares their exaggerated belief is the truth because the kernel is.

It's amazing how nobody is willing to acknowledge how their perspective is just conjecture. This is philosophy, it is possible to admit this and still make compelling arguments.

[Space]

1 minute ago, DrugsBunny said:

To him this inquiry is just silly because he lacks the critical thinking skills to see the merit in asking such a question. It is entirely possible that the existence of such a paradoxical application of the term "imaginary" would conceivably render it meaningless, in which case it would have significant implications because nobody should fear solipsism any longer, because it's distinction from synchronous consciousness would be meaningless. I just love being called silly by people who lack the cognitive means to even properly interpret what I am trying to address.

I'm not calling you silly. I have never and will never personally attack someone on the forum. Don't make this about me either. I'm saying this whole 'thing' you're doing or trying to 'work out' is silly. And everyone is doing this, it's not just you. What i'm trying to communicate is that every word we speak is one word further away from what is true. Because every word and sentence is completely and utterly meaningless and not it, and particularly so in the context of these kinds of topics. It really is utterly pointless, which is why I hardly ever come into this section of the forum. It's fun to talk about it, I get it. So please feel free to talk and think about imagination for as long as you desire. But when a total and complete dissolution of meaning and language into Infinity occurs for you it will be recognised that silence is the closest you can come to the answer you are looking for. And I genuinely wish that for you. 

[Razard86]

On 3/29/2022 at 11:46 AM, LastThursday said:

Says who? Where did you get this idea come from? What use is this idea?

Ok. But we're not living in chaos. Stuff exists and persists. God doesn't change its mind on a whim, there's orderliness to everything. Someone's OCD doesn't disappear because God gets up one day and decides it to be gone. The OCD goes because you and the world evolves and changes in an orderly way. 

God is like a river: you are like a pebble in the river, thinking its the river. The river's imagination is not the pebble's imagination.

 

There is a book called the true nature of reality. You CAN stop your OCD, you create it based on your beliefs. If you understood how POWERFUL your beliefs are, and how they change not just your reality, but also the reality of others you would understand.

Check this book out. https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Personal-Reality-Practical-Techniques/dp/1878424068

We are creating our problems all the time based on our beliefs. And the Michael Jackson forum poster is telling the truth. The human with OCD is imagining it because they LOVE OCD.

 

 

[SOUL]

19 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

It's amazing how nobody is willing to acknowledge how their perspective is just conjecture. This is philosophy, it is possible to admit this and still make compelling arguments.

It has nothing to do with making compelling arguments, it's about well being which is about the cessation of self suffering. Once there is well being there is nothing left to argue about.

Edited April 3, 2022 by SOUL

[RMQualtrough]

@DrugsBunny What do 90% of those words mean lol.