Real vs Imaginary Questions

[MrTouchdown]

I have several questions that I would be elated to receive some various perspectives on.

1. If there is no difference between the words “real” and “imaginary” as Leo suggests then are these statements equivalent:

Everything is real.

Everything is imaginary.

My opinion is the answer is yes.

 

However, this causes confusion because typically real is defined as not imaginary and imaginary is defined as not real.  

Thus it should be pointed out that Leo has gone against the grain and redefined the words to his liking. The question is whether this is an appropriate thing to do. A potential problem I see is loosing the ability to differentiate between something existing only in a person’s mind and existing in the world we seem to share.

2. So if you think these two words are not  synonyms as Leo does then can you provide definitions of these words that do not involve the other word so that we don’t have a circular definition.

Ultimately this is a verbal construction. May the best constructor bless the rest of us! 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by MrTouchdown

[JuliusCaesar]

There isn't any difference between sameness and difference so it isn't a contradiction for reality and imagination to be the same and also separate simultaneously. You can imagine that you're a human which has limited mental capacity, a feature of which is limited power(an ordinary human is very unlikely to succeed doing any kind of magickal work for instance). Then your imagination(which you imagine is beyond your control and feels real thusly) can conflict with your human imagination. Or another way of saying it is that you're dreaming up a physical reality, and part of the dream is that you're dreaming it isn't a dream. And since you're dreaming that you're not dreaming from your perspective it really seems as though you aren't dreaming. Of course, you can find ways in the dream of moving beyond your human limitations. But in order for that to be possible, you must first realize at least that you might be dreaming.

 

[Kksd74628]

@MrTouchdown

Calling everything as real is perspective which tells us that realness means that it is perceived nd therefore there is no difference between dream world, this world and tripping. Pointing out that the nature of reality is imaginary means that all that there ever could be to "you" must be inside experience which is "yours". They're just two different ways of seeing world and are communicating some wisdon and aren't contradicting each others. 

-joNi-

[MrTouchdown]

10 hours ago, JuliusCaesar said:

There isn't any difference between sameness and difference so it isn't a contradiction for reality and imagination to be the same and also separate simultaneously. You can imagine that you're a human which has limited mental capacity, a feature of which is limited power(an ordinary human is very unlikely to succeed doing any kind of magickal work for instance). Then your imagination(which you imagine is beyond your control and feels real thusly) can conflict with your human imagination. Or another way of saying it is that you're dreaming up a physical reality, and part of the dream is that you're dreaming it isn't a dream. And since you're dreaming that you're not dreaming from your perspective it really seems as though you aren't dreaming. Of course, you can find ways in the dream of moving beyond your human limitations. But in order for that to be possible, you must first realize at least that you might be dreaming.

 

If different and same are synonyms then what is the opposite of two things being the same/different?

[Kksd74628]

@MrTouchdown

Thing which includes everything cannot have opposite, because that is inside the definition. Things which don't have opposite are called as Absolutes.

-joNi-

[ZzzleepingBear]

To say that everything is imagination may be true in the absolute sense, but if you try to communicate that to someone, you then better make it clear beforehand or make a disclaimer from what level of consiousness you are talking about. Or otherwise, you conflate all meaning of language into  absurdity eventually.

14 hours ago, MrTouchdown said:

2. So if you think these two words are not  synonyms as Leo does then can you provide definitions of these words that do not involve the other word so that we don’t have a circular definition.

Yes, the merit of definition can be boiled down in atleast two different ways. To Intent and consequences. And It's up to each individual how or in what way they come to know any of these distinctions. If you conflate all meaning or refer to everything as imagination in a willy nilly fashion. You have then basically limit yourself to reason in a circular way, that is all dependant on your current mood, rather than discernment and reasoning.

If I for example don't like where a conterarument is going against my own logical position, I could just refer to any counterargument as ultimately coming from a imaginary position. And that would be the greatest cop out from losing any reasonable argument again. It's a very convenient hiddingspot for ones ego if you don't want to take accountability for what you said previosly, when being backed into some logical submission.

I'd say that very few people would like to play such a tail chasing game as to call everything imaginary when it feels convenient to do so. You are better of to learn to make destinctions since language already is a tool made for desticions anyway. distinctions are more versatile way to communicate than reducing everything to imagination on a whim.

[Batman]

Your way too clinging to words. What is the ultimate test to distinct between "real" and "not real"? Who dictates this distinction? And who will dictate that the distinction itself, or the creator of the distinction, are real or not real? See the problem here?

You are just going another round on the carousel of the mind. What is isn't real or unreal, it just is. So you either keep playing those conceptual games in your mind, or you start peeling off all the layers of the abstract dream you project onto what is. 

Ask your self this:  Is there any inherent "substantiality" or "realness" to your perceptions, or is it something that is made up in the mind? Where does the notion of "real or not real" reside in? Where did it came from? When you were a toddler, was there any distinctions of things being "real" or "not real"?

[MrTouchdown]

@Kksd74628 Can you provide an example of an absolute?

[MrTouchdown]

@Batman If this is neither real nor unreal in your view then I’m curious what your definition of real is.

[JuliusCaesar]

6 hours ago, MrTouchdown said:

@Kksd74628 Can you provide an example of an absolute?

Every direct experience you've had, including all waking experience, sleeping dreams. And chemical induced trips. All of these are instances of absolute truth.

 

6 hours ago, MrTouchdown said:

@Batman If this is neither real nor unreal in your view then I’m curious what your definition of real is.

What Batman is saying is logically equivalent to what I've stated above. Basically, experience is real and experience is also imaginary so it can really be anything. That of course includes things that aren't yet real in your experience, so the real and the unreal aren't really different in any objective way. It's just that dream characters make that distinction so as to help them function and survive within the dream. As in a dream where only certain things are experienced, including death and things that cause it. Then in that dream it's only the things experienced which are relevant. The other possibilities lose relevance as they either don't manifest in the dreamer's experience or at least are unlikely to do so.

[MrTouchdown]

@JuliusCaesar No you are saying it’s both real and unreal which is of course illogical if those words are not synonyms.
 

He’s saying it’s neither real nor unreal which translates to not real and not unreal which is also illogical if those words are synonyms. 
 

So what are your definitions of those words? 

[amanen]

It's real as in the direct experience is certainly real.

It's imaginary (i.e unreal) as in that reality doesn't just exist somewhere 'objectively', but is God's imagination, and that its more like a dream in this sense. An imagined dream by an infinite mind.

But its a real imaginary dream.

[Batman]

19 hours ago, MrTouchdown said:

@Batman If this is neither real nor unreal in your view then I’m curious what your definition of real is.

As @JuliusCaesar put it perfectly, the distinction of real/unreal is created by us for the purpose of survival. It has no substantiality outside the mind that creates it (like every concept). So inside a specific relative context and rules, you might say that something is real, for example the fact that you are now reading a response on your computer screen. But without a "relative playground" (about there being objective reality where you are the subject that experiences other objects, and so on), there are no facts and no distinctions.

From the waking state we determine that dreams are not real, because when we wake up they are just gone, like they never even happened. That is because we put the waking state on a pedestal and assume that this is the ultimate reference point for dictating what is real. But that assumption is exactly what we are inquiring when we "seek" what is absolutely true. 

[JuliusCaesar]

22 hours ago, MrTouchdown said:

No you are saying it’s both real and unreal which is of course illogical if those words are not synonyms.

The universe isn't under any obligation to make sense to the human mind. To assign the limitations of human imagination to reality is itself logically fallacious. This is the same thing people did when the Wright brothers said they could fly. Dissenters said "a machine heavier than air can fly? ha! physically impossible!".

 

If you want an objective point of view, you'll have to move beyond the limited capacity of ordinary human consciousness. Your current perspective exists not to elucidate the truth about everything, but to keep you alive. Whatever lies you need to say or believe in order to survive, you say or believe. Notice that if it were true that you don't even exist at all, your human mind can't really entertain that as you'd have no reason to survive if you weren't real.

 

Or if, you were an all-powerful being that by your Omnipotence limited yourself to the human experience. You can't really consider that either because it would mean all the struggling(surviving) you've done is pointless, as you could otherwise become capable of having anything you want simply because you want it. And that would break the game much the same way you'd destroy the US Dollar if you gave the Fed's ability to create money to everyone. That isn't to say it isn't possible in any absolute sense. I mean, the Fed technically has the authority to do that. And likewise, your unconscious mind having absolute power is capable of giving you all that you desire, including any state of consciousness which necessarily includes states of infinite power. This usually never happens because as I've stated already, it sort of breaks the game of reality that human dream characters play.

[Tyler Robinson]

31 minutes ago, JuliusCaesar said:

If you want an objective point of view, you'll have to move beyond the limited capacity of ordinary human consciousness.

Do you think it would stay objective anymore if we begin to blur reality? 

 

[MrTouchdown]

@JuliusCaesar This is all fine and dandy but why don’t you do something to prove your acclaimed omnipotence otherwise you’re all talk and no action. And I simply won’t take you seriously. From anyone who is looking at this with any sort of clarity you are just a limited being that thinks it can do anything. In other words you are delusional. Please make a rocket ship and prove your omnipotence. 

[JuliusCaesar]

1 hour ago, MrTouchdown said:

This is all fine and dandy but why don’t you do something to prove your acclaimed omnipotence otherwise you’re all talk and no action.

You make the mistake of assuming I want to prove myself to you. As if what you think mattered to me. You're here to entertain me with your nonsense and maybe just maybe learn from me.

 

1 hour ago, MrTouchdown said:

From anyone who is looking at this with any sort of clarity you are just a limited being that thinks it can do anything.

This statement is half false and half true. It is true that in my human incarnation, with ordinary consciousness I'm as limited as you are. It's false however, in that I've entered states where such limitations don't exist.

 

1 hour ago, MrTouchdown said:

Please make a rocket ship and prove your omnipotence. 

A rocket ship? Ha! Why would I bother with such a primitive thing as that?

 

1 hour ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Do you think it would stay objective anymore if we begin to blur reality? 

 

You're assuming that your human point of view is objective when in fact it isn't. If you ever became aware of the true nature of the universe, then you'd probably think you've lost your mind.

[MrTouchdown]

@JuliusCaesar Just know that you are useless.

Edited June 26, 2022 by MrTouchdown

[JuliusCaesar]

5 minutes ago, MrTouchdown said:

@JuliusCaesar Just know that you are useless.

To you yes, to myself no. That's how selfishness works.

[MrTouchdown]

@JuliusCaesar I thought you and I are the same being according to you so you should help me (yourself).