Reality is an illusion: Everything is energy and reality is not what you really see.

A mind full of illusions

Is this life real? Is everything in our life is an illusion? How do we know that we are not hallucinating it all?. Actually we can never prove that we’re not all hallucinating, or simply living in a computer simulation. But that doesn’t mean we believe that we are. ”How do we know that the stuff we see around us in the real stuff of which the universe is made? That’s the worry about the holographic principle, for example -Maybe the three -dimensional space we seem to live is in actually a projection of some underlying two-dimensional reality. Quantum physicists are discovering facts about the world that we would never have thought to be possible.

The scientific research that has taken place in the last few years are as significant to our understanding of reality as Copernicus’s outline of the solar system. The problem? Many of us simply do not…

View original post 1,017 more words

25 Replies to “Reality is an illusion: Everything is energy and reality is not what you really see.”

  1. Now this is funny, because I don’t know:
    Do you disagree with the first article from me I linked to,
    or the second one from Vishal Mishra I reblogged ?

    Like

    1. Lol 😄. Well; on one hand, I am not sure that there is a more fundamental reality that we are able to come across. I think the truth of the situation is that there is no more fundamental reality. Not even to say that it is energy. I think perhaps the only thing to say about what is more fundamental is that I’m speaking into this phone and I’m walking my dog and my feet are making noises on the gravel of the path, words are appearing on the screen. But by the time you read this there will be a different fundamental truth.

      On the other hand; The idea that there is this fundamental reality that is ultimately energy and that we are all just involved in an illusion, is a particular way that the mind is able to conceive of things within a hierarchical structure of value. There are only illusions within an illusion of fundamental Ness. As though I can have illusions and then I can find some fundamental substance that is essentially not the illusion. Any sort of conceptualization along those lines, I feel, is ultimately ideological. Which is to say, based in the body/mind ability to orient itself within a hierarchical structure of value.

      I’m not saying that it’s wrong, but I am saying that when someone poses to describe a “more real“ or like we are talking about, some fundamental reality upon which there are only illusions, that the person should make the disclaimer, or at least have the disclaimer in his or her pocket in case it Hass to come up upon further scrutiny, that they are really posing A kind of “mental health schema”, so to speak, I kind of religion for those who are not able to, if I must say it, see past the illusion of illusion. Four, indeed it is not that everyone has a potential in them to get beyond the illusion of the illusion, but that we don’t know who might be listening who has that ability. There is not a potential for every human being to be able to get over the “ Illusion“; it is the potential in me speaking along a certain line for it to meet that individual who is indeed able.
      For the idea that there is a “common human being” is it self part of the illusion. But indeed in so much is I am here and there, here speaking into this phone and possibly there as you read this comment, it is only ethical to behave as if there is a common human being, each which has a potential within them to “overcome the illusion”. But in my case I feel like you were talking along a more “first step” line of that there is a fundamental reality upon which everything else is an illusion. Where as I am saying that the idea of illusion itself is a mistake in the way one is oriented upon things.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Well, ok, you have a point there that the believe in an illusion is not a guarantee for one.
        However,
        In my own post, at the top link I did approach that issue from another angle, though:
        No believe was required but I demonstrated that superficiality in itself already is an illusion.
        Judge for yourself whether you could see the soul of the people displayed
        or whether you were trapped in their appearance.
        I think that comes closer to what was meant with the realm of illusion – it’s not “another world beyond” – it’s your own capability to transcend beyond the clichés of wealth, titles, beauty, etc.

        Liked by 1 person

            1. I read it already and think it is very good – in fact I think that you could start to collect your best articles so that at one point you may compile them into a book.
              That’s what I go for with my course
              – even if I only should put it online as a pdf, but it is good to collect and sort thoughts.

              Liked by 2 people

              1. How can you like my reply so fast? I just clicked on “post comment” and before even going back to my mail program your like already dropped in!
                (Maybe you have a script which does the liking for you 😉

                Liked by 1 person

          1. Well, Landzek, if you can’t relate to the Maya-concept that reality is an illusion, I’d recommend to you to watch the movie “The Matrix”;
            and since this is 2 decades old and you are likely to have seen it since a long time,
            I also recommend to you the series “Westworld”, season 1 which you have to watch from start to end.
            After that we can talk again about reality as an illusion.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I Love th matrix. It’s probable top 3 movies. And west world also I’m
              Loving. Even though I think they are going to put off the conclusion till another Season 😫

              Like

            2. But in our topic here, I would say the Matrix is most pertinent to our disagreement, perhaps.

              I like the movie because I associate most of the philosophical meaning of the movie to the journey of Neo. And less to the apparent dichotomy of the Fantasy and real worlds.

              I feel that the story of Neo says a little bit more about what is going on.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Where I agree with you is that the path of Neo in the end is more important than the dichotomy between the worlds and I think the reason why the concept of the analogy of an illusionary world is so appealing is because it provides fuel for the thrive to evolve beyond it.

                Yes, I have seen fight club, which also is about illusion but the difference to me is that the ancient Maya concept of illusion does refer to the realm of the senses nearly all people subscribe to as incorrect, while fight club does display the opposite of an individual being deranged.

                This is I think an important point: Both positions agree on the zeitgeist not being accurate but the difference is that the ancient path does declare the world as an illusion in order to transcend it in a sane way whilst madness is a manifestation of the ego twisting ones own worldview until it suits the wants of ones ego.

                And as for Westworld: You will get my detailed view about it on Sunday when my already written post will be published.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. I think the whole universe is alive. And we have a symbiotic relationship with the Earth. But, I also believe that human beings are capable of functioning and existing as if this is not the case, and indeed they do, and they thrive. I also feel that human beings As a creature will never go extinct. And this has nothing to do with the truth of the matter or us coming to terms With some greater truth or some illusion that we may be involved with. I think the way that human consciousness works is upon these kind of dynamics at all times. Within each moment contains the potential of these facets I just mentioned, as well as the idea that there is some sort of solution to it, whether it be individual, or whether it extends to the group.

                  So I see the path and story of Neo as that individual which comes to the end and finds out that his path of enlightenment between, not only to worlds, but between the idea of two worlds and another way of understanding how those two worlds relate, merrily serves The situation of most people who are not on the path . This is to say that the enlightenment is the realization thatunderstanding there is a polemical situation that needs to be solved towards an ethical good, namely, in the case of the matrix, coming to terms with “ The truth of reality”. The truth of reality is that some people simply refuse to while other people simply are unable to you come to terms in anyway, whatever way, with the fundamental duality, in whatever way they see that a solution needs to arise conceptually. Being late and situation of Neo is that he finds through all his troubles and ultimately coming upon the crux of the situation as though he’s going to solve this ethical truth, his path merely serves the maintenance of that conceptual idea that there is a illusion and the reality that needs to be come to terms with in the either or manner, either live in the illusion and let’s be in authentic, or come to terms with the reality.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. … I see the story of fight club along these lines similarly.

                    For most people, the story must be an either/or construct. The story of the hero must unambiguously solve the problem towards the ethical good. And the fact is, that for most people, no matter how you try to explain to them that such a resolution is merely a repeating of the same dichotomy, Albeit ethically in so much as that some “other” human beings must remain outside of that ethical resolution—- most people simply will either refuse to understand what you’re talking about or are entirely in capable of understanding what you’re talking about. In a more western philosophical context, this is why in the political sphere, but in science also, we love to adhere to the “everything is relative“, everyone has their opinion, we’re finding the truth of reality through subjective negotiation, ideals are so popular: it is not that everyone has their own subjective world, but that most everyone is in capable of viewing anything else outside of their own personal subjective truth.

                    Indeed in a post I wrote about a year ago I had some sort of discussion about mental health and the ethics of choice; basically I make the suggestion that people are in capable of making any other choice aside from the one that they make. That choice reflects and imperative of their being, that of consciousness which establishes themselves in the real world as an identity. And so then I go on to suggest that it is really a faith in the ideal of my own choice that pushes this concept of ethics and agency upon everyone else, and this is the root of the apparent frustrations and difficulties in our present world.

                    Liked by 1 person

                2. Yes. I do think when I am indeed dealing with other people, because of the limitations inherent in most peoples assessment of self and world, I must ethically speak to them in terms of mental health. (sanity, insanity) I think that’s why I am working on becoming a counselor. 😄

                  Liked by 1 person

              1. I have never found myself enamoured with small screens. There are many other reasons to doubt or even reject cellphones and mobile devices, given that they are especially plagued with unresolved limitation in functionality, rapid obsolescence and problems of disposal, resulting in millions of these portable devices going to landfills and poisoning the environment (as well as some of the workers assembling them in “sweat shops”) every year.

                In addition, it is just a phase that current mobile devices have such tiny screens. They will have (very) large screens in the coming years, when, in the not too distant future, scrollable, paper-thin technology will arrive, and the ultra-thin mobile device will have a screen as big as a newspaper or magazine, yet it is very light, foldable and/or scrollable, meaning that it can be collapsed or folded up to put in one’s pocket. So, when such foldable, collapsable or rollable mobiles become available, most or all of the current web apps developed for small screens of current mobile devices (and the need for, and limitation imposed by, texting and SMS messaging) will be obsolete or superfluous, whilst the usual websites will continue and function as they have been for many decades in the past, and many more decades into the future.

                Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s