psylence

one issue i have with "life" ot the perception of life, perhaps, is that our reality cannot ever really become objective - even if it is shared. it is always subjective. no matter how open you are with somebody, even if you can get past the cultural barriers and really share everything with somebody, the two of you are (and always will be) two different people with varying takes on reality's essence.

this is not something that bothers me actively, per se. just in principle. as much as i think that a collective unconcious is not necessarily far-fetched by any means... it is clear to me that we are alone in our self-indulgent ego-prisons.

which i suppose was said better by Einstein in his time: "A human being is part of the Whole. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness."

this alludes to the reliance on physical input being somewhat responsible for clouding the perception of our true nature. a dicey situation considering that we are (for the most part) completely dependent on our 5 senses for input. i'd have to say that if there was a 6th sense... it would have to be "thought" itself. thought interacts with reality just as much, if not more so, than our physical senses do... but in a different way. granted, it's contact with the familiar physical world is harder to measure. in fact, it's somewhat intangible and subject to speculation. but then again... what is thinking but speculation itself?

and, besides, i imagine we would probably have a nervous breakdown if we could become truly objective when it comes to self-analyzation. human nature plays a large part in that... but so does cultural influence along with self-deception, illusions of privacy, the false need for privacy, and the bubble effect... those sort of things.

ahem... forgive my rambling. if my first thread here is lacking in some way please don't hesitate to point out things i could improve or change outright.

so... comments? opinions?

Seeker

So are you focusing mainly on the possibility of objectiveness in our self-indulgent ego-prisons, or more on the possibility of a 6th sense of thought?

Personally, I've considered thought to be a force that creates our perceived reality in ways much stronger than first imagined... and I have found when taking thought into consideration in the physical reality, there are many more possibilities - perhaps it's too large to even comprehend. Every thought you think effecting your physical experience... you can go for miles with that!

The main problem then becomes you can't really validate your thoughts and experiences with those around you. As you suggested, we each have different thought patterns due to individual experience shaping our perceptions.

Perhaps this type of thinking will lead to people becoming secure in themselves without the need to look around for conformity and security in the masses. I mean how often is it that we look around to judge our experiences of what is real and what isn't...

Interesting.

__________________
To those who wander but who are not lost...

~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

Johnny Rotten

Well, I would submit that subjectivity is precisely what keeps social interaction so dynamic and interesting. Yes, it often leads to strife, but having a part of life illuminated for you by someone else can be amazing. I personally wouldn't want to share myself ultimately. Everyone needs a private space to collect their thoughts, be creative, and hatch devious plans.

And I wouldn't call thought a sense. Thought is the brain (1) processing what you've received through your senses and then (2) responding intellectually. If there could be a sixth sense, I would vote for the sensation of the passage of time.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

psylence

admittedly, the post was a bit of a ramble. originally i was just disappointed in our inability to truly "see" things from a purely objective viewpoint. after analyzation of exactly why we couldn't do this... i trailed off into detailing what exactly perception was... or how i perceived it. a bit of a tail-chase perhaps.

yes, i've come to think that it's actually a probability more than a mere possibility. i've run into brick walls like that before - when thinking about problems such as true objectivity. i would have to say that our reach exceeds our grasp at times.

agreed. there is no harm in trying... but it seems as though, in the end, it can be equated to trying to describe a dream you had to another person.

(curious. i ended each statement in analogy.)

psylence

first, thanks for shedding some light on something i'd lost touch with, myself.

my main argument against private space is based on more of my rejection of many of our cultural standards. to give an example... (and so begins my digression)... i have no body-shame, while others are chock full of it and the culture seems obsessed with it. i certainly don't have a problem taking a piss, having sex, or just standing around being naked in the general viewing area of anybody else. the nature of society's problem with this is a sexual one. i blame patriarchy/the dominator culture for this... but... anyway... back to the subject at hand.

i would argue that actually defining thought is no easy task. again, we've entered into a realm of subjectivity that makes it difficult to connect the way i'd like to. but back to the point: thought may be intangible, perhaps, but i'm not sure that it is beyond the category of senses. one sense does not need to validate another sense in order for either of them to function.

i like this idea. though we seem to be the only animal that concerns itself with such. in that way, perhaps it is more of a response to the awareness of our own mortality than a real system with actual effects on the physical world.