Are Reality and Significance Subjective?

If one watches US news, Al Jazeera, BBC and France 24 it would he hard to conclude no. Because the narration of reality and its significance to the participants presented therein differ widely. This is a mark of subjectivity as opposed to an objective reality. France 24 today had a debate about Trump’s off the cuff remark about the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. One man’s conquest is another’s brutal ethnic cleansing. One man’s real estate project is another’s exile and abject misery. These realities are not co-realities. A business deal to Trump is less significant than an irreversible life change for another and what is left of their family. Significance is in the context and the eye of the beholder and is not absolute.

The reality of a 9 to 5 job safe and secure in the city where one has kudos and power changes abruptly with a plane crash in the jungle. The hungry leopard does not defer to the fat cat boss over the manual worker. It sees dinner. The boss is easier to eat than the serf. In terms of economy, it selects the most calorific and facile.

Our normal realities are not as secure as we imagine, a mammogram or a prostate exam can flip our worlds in well under an hour. Yet we imagine in our complacency that our “reality” applies and continues to do so.

I am fond of multiple universes or put less dramatically, differing assimilations of “reality”.

My reality today is markedly different than it was 20 years ago. I do not walk in those circles and am not obsessed about the reality-metrics which apply therein for the measurement of success. I do not give a shit about research assessment exercises or student satisfaction feedback surveys. My main concerns are health and the bloody Coypu. My reality is wholly different and significance for me has changed vastly. Which suggests that reality and significance are in a way, time dependent. They are certainly spatially dependent. I no longer occupy that physical plane space; my reality has changed.

A socially acceptable narrative for me is that I was doing OK, then had burn out, and chucked my toys out of the cot. I dabbled a bit with science tutoring and then retired to France. I am now socially isolated and quasi-hermitic. This is largely lacking any wider significance, there are few implications. My impact on the world was short-lived and very local.

Based solely on dream “evidence” and subjective vision alongside this version of reality is that I have partial recall of prior lives inter alia a few as a Buddhist priest/monk. This in itself is not overly significant. It is the sort of thing one might say after a spliff or two.

“Hey man I can remember my life as a Thai Buddhist practising something like Muay Thai.”

“Far out Bro! I always thought you were spiritual.”

Of course this could all be made up hippy-trippy stuff.

People tend to choose the contextual framing of any “reality” to suit that which is most convenient for them to assimilate the world with.

I have been reading Anatole Le Braz today. He has compiled folk stories from the immediate area and they have been fun to read. In one such story a young woman of “friendly” morals had seven children. She dies as does her brood. She is doomed to spend purgatory near her erstwhile home as a sow with seven black piglets. After several interactions that went badly, the locals decided that if they encounter said sow and brood, they should cross the road.

Likewise, the souls of the dead can spend earth bound purgatory as crows.

If you and I were out and about on a misty Breton night and I mentioned the latter “fact”, and even if you were a rational omniscient scientist, a surprise meeting with a pair of crows might unsettle you. If I started to talk with those crows even though you could not hear their reply, you might brick it, a little. You might suspect that I was taking the piss, but you would not be sure despite all your omniscience. I could wind you up or simply laugh at your predicament with the crows. When they laughed back a shiver would go down your spine.

Out of context at your work desk in daylight your encounter with souls trapped in earth corvid purgatory would no longer seem an optional reality. They were just crows.

The assimilated reality is often highly subjective…

Two crows on a misty crossroad at dead of night are more significant than a deskbound recollection whilst dining al-desko.

What you deem significant might only be significant in your little world. This is not a thought which many entertain as they are often self-obsessed and fail to empathise with the wider world. As a consequence, people might miss something with much wider significance after all the fluff in the navel is tantamount.

Just because you don’t understand it or are unfamiliar with it does not mean that other realities are less real than yours. They may be separate but you would be a bigot to deny them if you have not as yet experienced them.

Are Reality and Significance Subjective?

A big fat yes from me…

Karmic Conundrums

In the context of karma, if you don’t {yet} believe in karma then it is your current karma so to do and be. It does not alter the fact of karma but your denial and disbelief thereof is karmic. Eventually karma will teach you about karma and cause & effect. In the context of karma there is an inevitability.

Do you believe in karma?

Answering this simple question has karmic consequences which may be wide ranging.

If, however, there is no such thing as karma the answer is a facile no.

To plump for an agnostic maybe suggests that karma exists, sometimes and in some circumstances. You might cherry pick the circumstances in which you give a nod to karma. Picking and choosing thus implies you want life on your own terms. You are selective.

To answer yes, implies that you acknowledge at least some responsibility for your actions.

To fully believe in karma at first might cause you to freeze and say, think and do nothing. You may not wish to cause anything.

A belief in karma has scaling to it. I have looked into its applicability and the concept of karma is for me sound and can be observed in many situations and events.

There are numerous social media, and YouTube videos entitled “instant karma”. There is a song by Lennon and Ono. People enjoy watching comeuppance. As a loose concept karma is held by many. But it is not as simple as prompt and obvious payback.  Enjoying people getting comeuppance is not in itself wise or pleasant.

It is my observation that karma can be very subtle and by way of a complex conundrum which is difficult to solve.

An obvious hurdle or bar to solving some karmic “problems” is the notion of face. People might want to resolve a situation but the only way to do that is to maybe apologise and lose some “face”. Thus, the problem never gets solved and it acts like a burr under the skin. It does not go away. Prompt action eases situations quickly, putting things off makes them worse. Boris Johnson struggled to admit he was wrong in Partygate because his sense of entitlement had it that rules did not apply to him the world king, they were for little people. Truss still refuses to accept she caused the markets to plummet. “Face” can exact a high price. And that price may come in the twilight of a life. Payment is due and with interest. Her political relevance wanes.

It is my thesis that much karma ripens and bears fruit near end of days. Challenges put off due to inconvenience re-appear just when one no longer has as much faculty to solve or face them.

In my experience karma has a lot to with attitude. Hoity toity and arrogant people can be knelt by the universe, taught a lesson of humility. To suggest to an arrogant person that this might happen is a thankless task and unlikely to succeed at first, it might sow a seed, however.

Those who believe they are able to act with impunity are the most likely not to believe in karma nor accept that they are responsible for the consequences of their actions. An example in case is the migrations from Iraq and Afghanistan. We caused this by invasion and destruction yet are unwilling to accept the consequence of immigration. We moan and complain and demand that it stops. We fail to acknowledge the lesson and are likely to repeat the same folly as a result.

 Karma can take many cycles to teach.

A typical karmic conundrum may involve wanting to resolve a situation but being unwilling to take the necessary risks or appropriate steps. In some cases, those steps which once were possible and facile have become very difficult. The longer resolution has been delayed the harder it becomes. The “problem” has grown, spread or bifurcated.

The poor attitude has acted as a growth factor for the problem. What was once simple has become highly complex and entangled. Escapism, avoidance and denial have fertilized the karma.

The saying, “what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive”, is a statement of karma. With an inevitability one lie requires more to prop it up. An early stage fess-up prevents a massive web of lies, metastasising.

If is the word which most stops karmic resolution. People want to put conditions on their actions and keep apparent control. By trying to control a situation and not resolve it one can make it a lot worse. This seldom occurs to some. They can be very adamant and stubborn.

“If I do that what is in it for me?”

Is a mindset which negates the law of karma.  

Accepting responsibility for one’s actions and how they ripple out into the trajectories of the wider world is not something that most people do. Being me or egocentric they fail to appreciate the wider connectivity.

Karma ultimately teaches that we are all connected in the same world.  We are a part and not as separate as we might insist or imagine.

At the moment global karma is being initiated in the middle east violence. What will the longer term effects be? Will they be widespread or localised?

Do you believe in karma?

Place your bets…spin the wheel…

Belief and Proof

I’ll speculate that many believe things, ideologies and religions for which there in no possibility of proof. Half of the UK “believed” that Brexit was a good idea, many were adamant even though the outcome was unknown. They professed with absolute certainty about something which had not yet happened. Some Americans chant the MAGA mantra. Exactly when was America ever a great and equal place? Bad stuff has always gone on there to some extent.

People will believe whatever it is they want to believe. The strength of belief may vary. The war in Vietnam seemed like a good idea at first. Someone thought agent orange was good.

The church had a vested interest in making people God-fearing. Bums on seats meant coins on collection plates and salaries for clergy. The gold held by the churches and all that chavvy stuff goes against my interpretation of New Testament Christianity which differs from Old Testament Torah. Yet many who name themselves Christian believe in an eye for an eye instead of turning a cheek. I personally cannot envisage any deity in human or anthropomorphic form. {With the exception of Ganesh} I was made to draw God as a white bearded white geezer at the convent school in Zambia.

People born with penises believe that they can be “women” after a few hormones and a change of clothes, a new frock.

Some of the conspiracy theories floating about are to my eyes far-fetched, yet they have their devotees. I do believe that the world is controlled loosely by rich people. The extent to which they conspire is moot. It is all about profit and the best way to get that is by being good at business and ensuring calm by means of pecuniary compliance. There is no need to do weird far-out stuff. 

Yep, some get corrupted by power and this can be expressed by abuse, sexual abuse and coercion. There are a number of ring-like groups that take advantage of those who are corruptible by promise of an easy ticket. Sometimes the cost of association to/with a powerful figure is high. Savile, Epstein, Al-Fayed. There are mini-mes of these scattered through the population, the degree of unpleasantness varies.

Between belief and proof, we might have working hypothesis. In which one tries out a framework or context to see how well it works, what the generality is like. There are “proofs” which are more circumstantial than direct.  There are things which suggest or point at an idea.

I believe in the concept of karma, there is sufficient observable causality for me to trust it as a concept, a working hypothesis. However, the subject is vast. I once did a whole blog exploring karma. The cornerstone of karma is evolution. One needs to learn from mistakes. Evolution and karma are of the same process. There is a cost associated with some actions which “the universe” wants paid. Karma not worked at in a timely fashion and with willing mood accrues karmic debt, much like a bank loan. One learns the effect of a causal action or behaviour. Sometimes people are slow learners.

The coypu no longer trouble our lotuses. Electric shock training with 0.25 Joule pulses at kilovolts works. We have a low electric fence which I installed. Cause and effect. Coypu karma.

I have had sufficient circumstantial evidence via visions and dreaming to believe in reincarnation. There is no way, on this planet, that I could ever prove reincarnation to the satisfaction of my scientific training. I could not put data into a spreadsheet and plot a graph with a fitted equation and a statistical quality of fit metric. I share the belief in reincarnation with millions. I probably believe it more strongly than most.

Karma and reincarnation as concepts are internally consistent. Karma spans lifetimes so that we can evolve. Karma is a teacher of sorts, in my world.  It takes lifetime after lifetime to learn somethings.

Is it significant that I who once was a pukka scientist at a pukka institution can remember three lives as a Buddhist monastic?

Depends upon what you think is significant. To your average common or garden UK football supporter it means nothing.  To someone who is a committed Buddhist it would not be a huge surprise, it might be tad interesting. Why not a scholar scientist and a scholar monk? It is not so different. Both have cerebral elements. To a bunch of scientists, it might be a red flag which needs disproved.

Have you noticed how science has a negation bias?

I’ll speculate that most people have a host of things which they believe which cannot be proven and moreover they do not question their beliefs or the provenance of the source from which they were obtained / picked up. Gossip and tittle tattle being a common currency which can become Gospel or God’s honest truth. “They” know and say an awful lot, do they not?

People can be very adamant about things which they have not checked or researched themselves. There is heavy reliance on hearsay. There are a lot of soap box orators both in real life and on-line. Hearsay has it that the spread of disinformation is huge and increasing.  This is consistent with what I see on Twitter. 

If you watch BBC, Sky, France 24 and Al-Jazeera the reporting on Gaza is very different. The British news is very sanitized and biased. People trust the BBC but it is reporting on a very different “war” to Al-Jazeera. Chalk and cheese. The UK right think the BBC is luvvie-socialist oriented.

People will believe whatever they want to believe. Convenience is a major factor in belief. They will believe what is the most convenient for them to believe. Inconvenient truths are generally not preferred. Coming round to an inconvenient belief takes time and is resisted, exemplified by the three individuals mention previously.  So far nobody has said a great deal about the Princess Diana – Al-Fayed relationship. That narrative is altered by recent news. Did King Charles have her bumped off? Is he still the villain or are there other factors now?

Belief is also mutable…

What you believe today is impermanent…I can’t prove it to you…I can offer it as a working hypothesis which you might see to be applicable.

———————————

How many of your beliefs are convenient?

Why did you prefer them?