My metaphysics theory

Forums: Metaphysics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This is copied from my blog, please visit it for a deeper understanding of how I view topics as Consciousness etc.

Hyperrealities

This post is one in a series where I try to explain my view on consciousness. For me the words 'Spirit', 'Soul' are just synonyms for 'Consciousness', in my posts I have on purpose used all of these words as I wan't the readers to get a feel for the topic regardless of their preposition.

These ideas are the core of my metaphysics.

Everything is Ideas

Consciousness creates realities; the Consciousness is the cause, and a reality is the effect. The Idea is the Consciousness's tool to create reality.

The Primary Subjective Hyperreality

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the Consciousness does not exists until self-realization or self awareness. Before self-realization nothing exists; no time, no space, no mass, no empty void, just nothing.

When a Consciousness becomes self aware it has an emotion that it exists; this is what I call the 'I AM'-emotion. This is the first emotion of the Consciousness and is gained through a sudden introspection.

After the Consciousness has realized its own existence it has its first idea; time. This comes as realization since it realized that 'before' it did not realize it existed, but 'now' it does. So, therefore the Consciousness's idea of before and after create time itself. When the Consciousness realizes that it has created the very time it exists in it has what I call the 'I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN'-emotion, which is its second emotion.

The Consciousness's third emotion is the 'I WILL ALWAYS BE'-emotion; this is result of Consciousness's realization that it created the hyperreality it resides by the means of its own ideas and therefore will always exist as long as its hyperreality does, which is forever.

These three emotions plus the idea of time is what I call the Primary Subjective Hyperreality; 'Primary' since it is the first and most basic hyperreality a Consciousness can experience, and 'Subjective' since it (so far) only applies to the Consciousness at hand. This Primary Subjective Hyperreality is Solipsism at its most true form.

More introspection create more complex realities

Intrigued by itself the Consciousness explores its own hyperreality, adding to its complexity with more ideas that creates more complex forms of reality. The Consciousness is always in motion, exploring its reality in all its forms. The more it explores its reality the more its ideas create. An example may be that the Consciousness observes that it now knows more than it did before; enter mathematics.

Illusions

The Consciousness realized that all but it's three basic emotions may be illusions, thus the primary goal of the Consciousness is to separate what is facts from illusions. As an example, the idea of there being other Consciousness's may enter, but the Consciousness knows that the idea of another Consciousness may create one, which would cause it to be an illusion and not something real. But in fact, it may conclude that both statements are true; that it is equally true if it creates a Consciousness by its own ideas as if the second Consciousness had created itself or had been created by another Consciousness.

Merging of hyperrealities

Before merging of one Consciousness hyperreality with another Consciousness hyperreality a common concept of space and time must exists. The idea and creating of a space may occur when the Consciousness explores the ideas of other Consciousness's not being 'here' but 'somewhere but here'.

Two or more Consciousness hyperrealities can only merge if they share the same ideas of space and time. Also, they need to locate each other in what is their perception of space and time before they can start to perceive each other. Only after they realize each others presence can they begin to merge or communicate.

It is important to understand that the two to be merged hyperrealities may be vastly different in its ideas of reality. Most concepts of their realities may differ and they may therefore not understand each other or be able to perceive each others hyperreality.

If I was to make an example (please mind that this is a very abstract example to explain my ideas) of this then imagine that the Consciousness had lived inland all its life and had no other concepts than dirt and dust etc. Then one day the first Consciousness travelled far and came to a sea; the sea is here the abstract example of the second Consciousness's perceived hyperreality. Since the first Consciousness had no concept of what a 'sea' was it would sit down and ponder what this weird and beautiful thing could be. After studies, the first Consciousness create new ideas of the waves in the sea being like blue sand dunes, which were concepts it already knew from before abstracted to its own reality. The second Consciousness may also be studying the hyperreality of the first Consciousness and tries to figure it out. If that second Consciousness tries to make contact with the first, thus breaching into the first Consciousness hyperreality, it may not be clear to the first Consciousness at first; as the second Consciousness comes out from the sea the first Consciousness may think to itself -"That's a strange wave", as its concepts are lacking to understand what it sees. Just imagine if you yourself would experience something that you had no concept of understanding, where you had no symbols to relate to; then everyone would have its own subjective experience and some would explain the experience as a ghost, some a troll or even having met the devil himself, other again would see a light in the sky, etc., all so to explain the experience to themselves using symbols they can relate to.

If it dawns for the Consciousness's that they have met another Consciousness their ideas will work as a bridge that form a new merged hyperreality, this is achieved through study of the other Consciousness hyperreality. This new merged hyperreality may be vastly more complex as they feed of each others ideas and create new ideas which in turn creates more reality asf. An indefinably number of hyperrealities can be merged in this fashion.

Rules in the hyperrealities are added by mutual agreement between Consciousness's. How else can you play a game than without mutually agreed upon rules?

Universe

I postulate that our own universe is a reality created by these Consciousness's, which are Us; all Conscious Beings, and here We explore Our own common reality. There may very well be other universes too, that have been merged, are, or will be merged with Ours, or even Universes that We can not perceive.

So, happy exploring! Smile

Kind regards,
Inge Henriksen.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,774 • Replies: 23

No top replies

@IngeEivindHenriksen,

All that I know is that I am, I am, I am.
Albert Einstein once said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one". Within his simple quote lies great metaphysical truth and mysteries; how do you know anything is real?

Recent films like The Matrix and philosophical books like Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation explores the idea that everything may be a dream or simulation of some sort or another. Mind you, the idea is not new within religion and philosophy; it has spawned ideas like Solipsism.

"I AM, I AM, I AM"
So, if everything can be an illusion, can we know anything for certain at all? My conclusion is YES! Self-aware beings know that they exists. Self-awareness is the sensation of knowing that You Are, sometimes accompanied by a sensation that You have always existed, and will always exist. Students within the Mystery School traditions may exclaim "I AM, I AM, I AM" to acknowledge that they have been Enlightened to this fact. The first "I AM" is the realization that You Are, the second that You Have Always Existed, and the third that You Will Always Exist.

So, what the heck is "Self-Awareness"
I broke these theories to a friend of mine once, and he could not grasp it since he (according to himself) has no sensation of self-awareness. I thought long and hard to find a simple way of explaining what self-awareness is to someone that is not, the challenge was dazzling since it is sort of like explaining what colours are to someone that has been blind since birth.

I finally think that I found a simple way of explaining what self-awareness is to people that don't acknowledge that they are self-aware themselves.

The Dream Proof
Most people dream when they sleep, some more vividly than others. Sometimes when one sleep one realizes that the dream is not "real", which often causes the person to wake up. This sensation of you feeling less real in a dream and the dream not being the true reality is exactly what self-awareness is; a profound emotion that You Exist and that You are real. An emotion that may be hard to explain with conventional logic. When you feel less real in a dream your conscious mind may say "Hey! This is not reality!" and You Awaken from The Dream.

I hope I have helped You on Your travels.

0 Replies

@IngeEivindHenriksen,

My definition of the spirit
Spirit or soul mean different things to different people and religions. To me the spirit is defined by the following axioms:
-Belongs to the hyperreality
-Expresses itself in reality through biological lifeforms
-Trancends the biological lifeform
-Source of the consciousness

These axioms give some surprising results:

-Memory retained after the biological lifeform is dead and is only expressed though the brain
-The brain is just a "film projector" for the spirit which is the base of conscious thought, rather than the brain being the base of consciousness
-A sense of identity can exist after death of the biological lifeform

0 Replies

@IngeEivindHenriksen,

Know Thyself

The first rule of happiness is to Know Thyself, the second rule of happiness is to Know Thyself.

To learn who you are will teach you what makes you happy, and what does not. If you do not know who you are, then you may end up chasing what other people perceive as happiness. This can become a chase after material symbols of happiness, and not true happiness in a spiritual sense.

A hundred years ago people in the west may have thought of happiness as owning their own home and having a full stomach every day, today the majority of people in the west have all these material pleasures and much more, but are we truly more happy than before?

Only through introspection can you get to know your true persona, your inner self, your spiritual template.

A person that does not know himself may not even know why he is unhappy, he may have a good material life and have a high social standard. For all intents and purposes he should be a very happy person, but still he is plaqued with depression or a sad emotional state, everything may seem pointless without the person understanding why he is unhappy. The cause may be that he has fulfilled his material requirements for happiness, but not his spiritual needs. Unfortunately, western medicine often only treat the body and not the spirit in these cases, when visiting a doctor or psycologist he may only get drugs that treat the symptom and not the root of his problem. Others may just expand their quest for even more material symbols of happiness, in a never-ending loop of getting something better-than-before, something newer, or something with a higher social status.

It is easy to forget that we are flesh and spirit, and thus get caught up in the symbols of material happiness, forgetting that man is spirit foremost. Does not the spirit last forever, and the flesh only for a blink of an eye? Therefore, I claim that man should search for spiritual happiness first, and material happiness secondly.

0 Replies

@IngeEivindHenriksen,

Hardly original !

Tip: Beware the word "MY" ! Blogs don't work because they are merely a self valedictory exercise, but it is transcendence of that "self" which is evidence you are moving in a valid direction.
All the thriving "schools" exploring consciousness correctly stress the importance of the "experiential" over the "theoretical".

2 Replies

@fresco,

The first who speaks may seem to give a speech, when someone answers its a conversation.

A poorly written essay may contain a great literary work.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

All the thriving "schools" exploring consciousness correctly stress the importance of the "experiential" over the "theoretical".

Academic and learning from experience is only secondary to remembering Your true conscious or spiritual Self. Our geniuses did not learn something truly new, but remembered something they already knew. This is why child prodigies does not seem need training, they already know their talent. All consciousness has infinite power and possibilities. We have created reality and We know all its nooks and crannies.

1 Reply

@IngeEivindHenriksen,

IngeEivindHenriksen wrote:

Academic and learning from experience is only secondary to remembering Your true conscious or spiritual Self. Our geniuses did not learn something truly new, but remembered something they already knew. This is why child prodigies does not seem need training, they already know their talent. All consciousness has infinite power and possibilities. We have created reality and We know all its nooks and crannies.

No, you are grossly over simplifying how prodigies happen. They don't just "remember" or "instinctively" know something, it doesn't work like that. Their ability to comprehend and learn the subject happens at an accelerated pace which opens them up to make extensions within the subject. They don't just spontaneously know the subject as you are trying to express that they do.

Your ideas of consciousness seem to me nothing more than overloading the definition of consciousness. Consciousness does not think or comprehend or fathom anything. Consciousness is just simple raw awareness. The process of examining that awareness is what we call thinking, but they are two separate faculties. You can have consciousness without thinking and you can have thinking without being conscious. But simply being conscious doesn't mean that you can ponder anything or have thoughts. It doesn't work like that.

Not only that but we have never known a consciousness that exists without a body or brain. For all that we know, a brain must be required before there can be consciousness. If I am wrong about this, give me an actual example of something that is conscious that does not have a body or brain.

1 Reply

@IngeEivindHenriksen,

Quote:

The first who speaks...

You seem to think you are the first ! Laughing

Try reading up on Hegel's monads, Theosophy, Rudolf Steiner or Gurdjieff.

Quote:

A poorly written essay may contain a great literary work.

....but usually indicates ignorance of reference material.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Try reading up on Hegel's monads, Theosophy, Rudolf Steiner or Gurdjieff.

Iron, copper, and acids have been know to man since ancient times, but the first battery was only made when the first man put all these components together in an intelligent manner.

Please give me references to the ideas you want me to investigate, my time is limited.

Quote:

....but usually indicates ignorance of reference material.

I don't usually adhere to assumptions. Either there is ignorance or there isn't. If there is suspicion of ignorance the person(s) claiming this should make his case clear.

1 Reply

@IngeEivindHenriksen,

When you are prepared to critically examine phrases like "my time is limited", you may really learn what "awareness" means. Until then, you are doomed to a self rationalization exercise in which nobody else has interest.

Wake up ! Ask yourself why anybody should read what you write, if you are not prepared to read what other's have written ! Understanding of THAT fact about "yourself" is one of the first requirement for an analysis of "consciousness", in which "selves" are as illusory as what you call "reality".

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

No, you are grossly over simplifying how prodigies happen. They don't just "remember" or "instinctively" know something, it doesn't work like that. Their ability to comprehend and learn the subject happens at an accelerated pace which opens them up to make extensions within the subject. They don't just spontaneously know the subject as you are trying to express that they do.

I respectfully disagree with your observations here. My own experiences differ in this matter.

Quote:

Your ideas of consciousness seem to me nothing more than overloading the definition of consciousness. Consciousness does not think or comprehend or fathom anything. Consciousness is just simple raw awareness. The process of examining that awareness is what we call thinking, but they are two separate faculties. You can have consciousness without thinking and you can have thinking without being conscious. But simply being conscious doesn't mean that you can ponder anything or have thoughts. It doesn't work like that.

This has more to do with semantics than anything else. When first starting to formulate my theories I discovered that topics like 'consciousness', 'mind', 'soul', 'spirit', means different things to people. The came to the conclusion that the most suited word was 'consciousness' as it had the least religious impact or implications.

For me, Consciousness is the Cause (ref. Cause/Effect theory) and the ideas are the Effect. At its most basic the Consciousness is the 'I AM'-emotion, this is not a thought but an emotion. You see, I don't recon emotions as thought, which may also be confusing to many, emotions are mass less, space less, and timeless, they transcend the space and time in all hyperrealities. Even though the emotion 'I AM' exists, the Consciousness is not self-aware before the idea that it exists comes into play. Where this 'idea' originates from still alludes me, most likely it comes from other Consciousness's that has the idea that the new Consciousness exists. Here we have another chicken & the egg problem, but since the base byperreality time may be vastly different from our linear, circular time for example, one it could be logically conceived of. After self-awareness ideas is produced from the Consciousness; the new Consciousness becomes the cause and the ideas the effect. To me, thinking and ideas are not the same, rather the Consciousness does not think as we use the word; it examines and creates its reality by its ideas, it knows all in the hyperrality it exists because it (co-) created it and upholds it with its ideas.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

When you are prepared to critically examine phrases like "my time is limited", you may really learn what "awareness" means. Until then, you are doomed to a self rationalization exercise in which nobody else has interest.

Wake up ! Ask yourself why anybody should read what you write, if you are not prepared to read what other's have written ! Understanding of THAT fact about "yourself" is one of the first requirement for an analysis of "consciousness", in which "selves" are as illusory as what you call "reality".

I did not mean to seem disrespectful. To clarify; the world has many books, I would like to read them all but my time is limited. Therefore it is best if you are more specific what ideas of a philosopher you wan't me to investigate rather than just mentioning his name.

1 Reply

@IngeEivindHenriksen,

No offence taken I assure you.

The "wake up" call will be found in Google references to Gurdjieff under "sleep". If you read up his system you will understand that trying to communicate "a theory" about consciousness is futile. Adages like "know thyself" can be found both there and in the writings of Krishnamurti. ( There are certainly earlier references to it in Marcus Aurelius). References to "remembering one's spiritual continuity" can be found in Steiner, who like Gurdjieff was an ofshoot of the Theosophy movement (later to produce the rebel Krishnamurti).

Hegel's monads encapsulate the idea of "consciousness" as a priori, but the problem with a dichotomy between experience and
reality (Kant's phenomena and noumena) are that neither in itself provides a satisfactory basis for the totality of experience (e.g. being "surprised" by events)....and this focus on "a satisfactory explanation" then leads to an exploration of epistemology (theries of knowledge) which tends to be inextricable from ontology (theories of existence). For an interesting but difficult analysis of that see Heidegger (Being and Time), in which the importance of neologisms ( a metalanguage) is stressed for transcendence of the problem*. This in turn indicates a diversion into the role of language in "shaping consciousness" (References: Wittgenstein, Whorf, Rorty)

(*Listen e.g. to Dreyfus audio lectures on Heidegger on the Univ Berkeley website)

Of course, none of this matters unless you are prepared to expose your self-integrity to potential deconstruction, by examining your motives for publicising "your theory" in the first place. You expended energy on it, but the energy you will need to follow up those references will be far greater, and may be less personally rewarding.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Scholar, I will read up on your references and get back to you. But please mind that I consider academic teachings only useful as symbols to help one remember the truth. We already know all. We have unlimited potential. Please continue to de-construct My ideas.

Quote:

Of course, none of this matters unless you are prepared to expose your self-integrity to potential deconstruction, by examining your motives for publicising "your theory" in the first place. You expended energy on it, but the energy you will need to follow up those references will be far greater, and may be less personally rewarding.

My intentions are clear to Me from the beginning. Not to teach, not to learn, but to help some of You remember. I post this as a favor to a friend for no less reward than freedom of the mind.

1 Reply

@IngeEivindHenriksen,

Good....and bear in mind that you may not yet be in a position to understand that your phrase "academic teaching" is merely a straw-man involved in the maintenance of that little "me" which has promoted itself to big "ME". Wink

2 Replies

@fresco,

It may be true that the Ego and self-preservation is a useful trait to continue ones genetic heritage, but the Ego is much deeper than that. In fact, the Ego stems from the Consciousness that where a kind of self 'Agape' exists, this self love is much stronger than other kinds of love, like Philadelphia. This results in a complete Ego where all others play 'second fiddle' to one self. The Consciousness exists in a reality of complete narcissism similar to the idea of the Id in Primordial Narcissism theory. This is confusing to many because of the commonly accepted idea that ego development is counter to spiritual progress, but this is actually completely false, knowing your true self will free your mind and accept that you are 100% ego.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Good....and bear in mind that you may not yet be in a position to understand that your phrase "academic teaching" is merely a straw-man involved in the maintenance of that little "me" which has promoted itself to big "ME"

The reason I was asked to post my ideas is because mainstream philosophy has failed the other sciences like physics. It has become lost on a path. Even though the phrase says "all roads leads to Rome" the reality is that most roads does not lead to Rome. The result of this erroneous path is that other sciences study reality without realizing that it they themselves have and are currently creating it as they study it.

1 Reply

@IngeEivindHenriksen,

Quote:

The result of this erroneous path is that other sciences study reality without realizing that it they themselves have and are currently creating it as they study it.

I commune with this general idea, but you are again setting up a straw-man with your word "reality". Scientists study "what works". Even if they use the term "reality", they are non-philosophically in the business of prediction and control. The word "reality" is an unhelpful layman's concept in this respect.

Traditional epistemology is indeed out of its depth with respect to the paradigms of modern science which in essence are NOT couched in naive realism. A good analysis of demise of traditional philosophy in this respect can be found in Rorty.

Note that your attachment to the concept of a time independent consciousness is antithetical to the predictive mode of science, and so cannot be offered as "an alternative philosophy" in that respect. Nor can you use phrases like "consciousness causes..." since this is also inconsistent with respect to your overview,( irrespective of a side issue that "causality" has been philosophically deconstructed as early as Locke).

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Note that your attachment to the concept of a time independent consciousness is antithetical to the predictive mode of science, and so cannot be offered as "an alternative philosophy" in that respect. Nor can you use phrases like "consciousness causes..." since this is also inconsistent with respect to your overview,( irrespective of a side issue that "causality" has been philosophically deconstructed as early as Locke).

Semantics; I struggle to find a better word than 'consciousness'. The 'I AM'-emotion is timeless, but is not Consciousness. The Consciousness appears trough introspection. The Consciousness is like an instance of the 'I AM'-emotion symbol, the symbol is not Consciousness in itself but has the potential to become Consciousness.

When I use the word 'reality' you must remember that not only am I an anti-materialist, but I claim that there is not 'matter', all is ideas created by Consciousness. Therefor I rather use the word 'hyperrality' as it is more close to what I mean. Lets make an abstract example to visualize my ideas; think of an emotion like a radio channel that the Consciousness can tune into. The radio show is always paying but there may-or-may-not be any listeners. You see, I emotions are not owned, they are 'tuned into'. The Emotions are timeless and space less. Contrary to what mainstream philosophy seems to take for granted; emotions are not created by an experience, they are 'tuned into'.

The Consciousness follows its ideas of time, but this time may not be the same kind of time that we experience in our 'reality'. Our reality may the result of countless hyperrealites. To visualize these concept in an abstract manner then think of all the hyperrealities like an infinite ocean where each drop is a hyperreality; then what most of us humans experience as 'reality' is just the white foam on one wave in this vast infinity.

1 Reply

My metaphysics theory

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know