Is it possible?

[cjames]

Is it possible to think that the people and world around you isn't just concentrated around you, but also you around them? If I walk home from school it is hard for me to imagine what I look like from the drivers perspective, and I very easily think that he is there because I am there. But he still would be there that day at that time, even if still was at school wouldn't he?

I can't even try to imagine all the seperate lifes that are being lived on the whole globe. Is it possible to ignore my own excistance, and see my own life through the eyes of some other?


This probably don't make much sense, but I find it hard to put these thoughts of mine into words that have a meaning.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by cjames

Is it possible to think that the people and world around you isn't just concentrated around you, but also you around them? If I walk home from school it is hard for me to imagine what I look like from the drivers perspective, and I very easily think that he is there because I am there. But he still would be there that day at that time, even if still was at school wouldn't he?

I can't even try to imagine all the seperate lifes that are being lived on the whole globe. Is it possible to ignore my own excistance, and see my own life through the eyes of some other?


This probably don't make much sense, but I find it hard to put these thoughts of mine into words that have a meaning.

Remember that there is a difference between what you think and what is. Thinking of everything is impossible. Allowing everything to exist is not. All you need to do is accept that these things exist. Allow it to take place so to speak. In reality everything is connected to everything. By not resisting; not denying; not thinking it is simply there.

[cjames]

Thank you for clearing my mind ( for a little while)

[de_budding]

Arjen, isn't it still possible that it never goes beyond 'what you think'? It could still be an illusion.

[Didymos Thomas]

Is it possible to think that the people and world around you isn't just concentrated around you, but also you around them?

Doesn't this stand to reason? I am not the only thing that exists, and there is no reason I can see to imagine the matter I refer to as "me" to be any more important than anything else.

How could the whole of reality be concentrated around [i]you]/i]? We often like to think the world revolves around us. This is true for everyone, and we cannot all be right - the universe cannot revolve around me, you and the dog.

But he still would be there that day at that time, even if still was at school wouldn't he?

That is a reasonable assumption.

I can't even try to imagine all the seperate lifes that are being lived on the whole globe. Is it possible to ignore my own excistance, and see my own life through the eyes of some other?

There is no way to exactly see your life as another would, but we can, and should, be sensitive to the different perspectives of other people. Instead of ignoring one's own existence, look deeply into that existence. Doing so will show you a great deal about the way other people view you and the world around them, which is what you seem to be after anyway - understanding the perspectives of others.

[Khethil]

This is an important issue and an intensely-insightful question. It's posing suggests a growing and admirable sense of awareness in the mind of the questioner. Its answer inevitably leads - as all who've replied - towards a sense of perspective of our place, that being that this world and all we behold, does not place us at its center. These conclusions are healthy in breeding humility and and respect for the sheer vastness of the sea of life.

Thank you for bringing this up, we all should be so insightful as to conceive and respect that we are but a single dot amidst the sea of faces that is (has been and will be) humanity. Without this, we collectively digress into a most-despicable arrogance; the likes of which has been a watermark of humanity's darkest times.

bravo

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by de_budding

Arjen, isn't it still possible that it never goes beyond 'what you think'? It could still be an illusion.

De budding,

I think that if indeed things never go beyond what one thinks either one is not seperating thought from reality. If reality never goes beyond thought, is it then not reality that bends to thought? If this would be followed to its origin, is thought then the product of itself? -No!

For something must exist to be acted upon. A thinker must exist to think. For if I doubt anything, is not doubt a thing to be sure of?

~Rene Descartes

[de_budding]

Now we have arived at brain in the vat right?
The thought exists genuinly still, but has been intentionally submerged in a world where nothing exists. The Matrix idea.

EDIT: I read the Descartes quote again and felt like retracting my comment, but I'm not sure why so I'll wait to get burned.

Dan.

[Arjen]

I think Descartes is pointing out that the only thing we can honestly be serious about (at first) is the fact that we think. We know this because if we doubt everythinh we are still doubting so thought is a given. Therefore there must be something which "thinks"; or "is acted upon". The question then comes to mind what is acting upon "that which thinks".

I used the argument to show what things we can be sure of. If everything was an illusion (as you yourself suggest: not I) then still there would have to be something that has the illusion. Anyway, the brain in a vat thought experiments are really interesting. We could create a topic in that if you want.

[de_budding]

Lol, sure but you and Boagy got my head spinning at the mo, I probably gotta opt out that 'action' thread, take a day off and then we can discuss brain in a vat.
btw, thanks for your help on said thread, you commentary and observations have been paramount to my understanding (the little understanding I have. :P)