No, I do not think its either or. These two perceptions are the ones that create conflict and materialism, the bane of the world. You impose objectivity until you realize you are being deluded by sense experience, just as you are deluded by dreams that they are real. Obviously it does not hold true because to each one of us, our objective view arises from sense experience and my world through sense experience will never be your world.
No one imposes objectivity. At best one rationally accepts that it is objective until evidence arises to the contrary.
Further, I'm not sure you quite understand what objective reality entails, as you say that it obviously does not hold true, and you seem to think it arises from sense experience...
What arises from sense experience is our subjective view of what might well be an objective reality. Nothing we can do can ever dispute or confirm whether reality is objective or subjective, so there is no "obviously does not hold true" about it.
A subjective reality, as generally understood, is where there is no objective reality at all, but that we each construct our own reality.
But since we can both look at the same object, even though we may experience it slightly differently, is it not rational to assume that there is indeed an objective reality that we then interpret subjectively and thus possibly differently?
But if I realize that objectivity is a creation of sense experience, it helps me to understand the world better. Its like saying,’ A man is wiser who knows he is a fool’ When you acknowledge that your sense experience is all you have, and therefore ‘personal’ you will more easily accept the possibility that you are wrong on many things, and then it leads you to search fro truth. But as long as you think ‘objective world’ exists, you unfortunately set yourself up and you will be mislead.
And this just continues along what I see as a misunderstanding of what is meant by an objective or subjective reality, plus some rhetoric with no actual substance.
No. our senses are not like indestructible wall-paper covering the wall of objective reality. Rather they are creators of a non-existent wall.
As I said, that is what some people also argue. But you will struggle to prove it. It is a philosophical position, as is the notion of there being an objective reality. Yet the latter is what the success of science shows to be rational, at least to those who think scientifically.
[qupte]Take for example the dream reality. When he is asleep, we find that the Mind of Man, is a generator of a reality we call “Dream State” This reality, generated by the mind, seems quite real to us, when we are asleep. [/quote]I'm sure it does to some people, but not to me. To me it is no more real than watching something on the TV, just a tad more interactive. I know some people claim their dreams are very realistic and they genuinely think it's real, but I've rarely if ever experienced that... Rather always on the cusp of telling my dream-self that it is a dream, but I don't as I know I'll wake up (although with practice you can stop yourself from doing so) and I enjoy the escapism of my dreams.
The dream reality replicate the reality we find ourselves in when we arise. In the dream reality, everything we experience assumes total authenticity. It appears so real, such that its impossible to imagine that all that all that we experience in the dreamland, the people we meet, the places we go to, the things we do, is all generated by the mind. Nobody knows he is dreaming when he is in dream state.
I suggest you do some research on lucid dreaming.
But no, I disagree that dreams are as vivid and as authentic as you make out, at least not for me. I can never see as clearly, or focus on things the way I can in reality. The colour is not there, but rather it is a blandish almost sepia-tinted experience, and everything is hazy. I always have this vague notion that it is not reality and I just go with the flow.
That said, I know others to whom their dreams are very real.
Its difficult to consciously recognize when in the dream state, that we are all that has happened in the dream reality. That we were the people, the places, and the things that we did. That we were both, the generators, and experiencers of the dream reality.
....
Our mind generated all this reality. It did not exist, apart from our mind. The mind expressed, it, and experienced it.
Yes, it is an entirely subjective world based on our experiences, and our interpretation of those experiences. Bent I'm sure you're getting to a point with all this.
Now, in our waking state, we find ourselves in another reality, exactly which appears as a replication of the dream reality. In this reality, our senses, convince our minds that this reality we are now experiencing in our wakeful state, is real. Its out there, its true. Its physically separate, and disconnected from us. It exists apart from us. That we are mare its observers, who have a subjective experience of the separate, objective and disconnected reality. However, one thing we have just found out is that this waking reality is as much a generation of our mind, though our senses experiences, just as the dream reality is a generation of the same mind when it was asleep. This waking reality, is a reality perceived through our sensory organs, which our mind impose objectivity , and interpret as existing out there. Our senses tells us that whatever is out there, be it “things” or “people” is separate from us. Yet, this reality, the waking reality, is as much a generation of the mind just as the dream reality. Without the mind interpreting these sensory data, thus experiencing this reality, we cannot tell what these “things in themselves are”. The main question is this; why, should we accept this waking reality as the true reality, and reject the dream realty as an illusion, yet, both are a creation of the same mind? The point is, if at all, when we woke up we found that all that we dream was us, why should we accept the waking reality, any less a dream reality, than the reality generated when we are asleep? If the dream reality is a subjective experience, and the waking reality apparently is also a subjective experience, where, then, do we draw the line of differentiation? What makes waking reality any less a dream state?
First, I'll reiterate that, at least to me, the dream state is nothing like my reality. I do not experience it like I experience reality, although I am not generally fully aware that I am dreaming, but it is like I know that it is not reality but go with the flow.
As to your main point, if you genuinely dream in the same level of realism as your waking state, then there is no difference to you in the nature of the
subjective experience. But this does not get to the heart of whether there is an objective reality or not. It merely means there are multiple layers of subjectivity: that experienced by your wakeful state, and another experienced by your dreaming state. But it speaks nothing to what may be behind them, causing them.
So interesting though it may be, I can't really see the relevance to the points in hand, nor to your notion of "unity" in this regard.
Further, if you think reality is subjective, are you not ultimately solipsist?