If you don’t care about amatteur philosophy/self-development/logic, I recommend you ignore this post. This is a pure rant, so I’ll try to keep it short.
There’s this unbelievably popular self-development blogger Steve Pavlina. Some of his posts are quite insightful and have practical uses. Some make we want to embed my head in a concrete wall, by force. The crimes against common sense and logic are just too painful to bear.
The thing that prompted me to write this is his yesterday’s post 11:11. While it’s not the main topic in of the post, the irksome part is where Steve restates his belief that reality is defined by one’s belief. That is, anything that you encounter in the world around you is actually a product of your “true” beliefs. Any unpleasant or unexpected things are then the manifestation of a subconcious urge or somesuch. An illustrative quote :
You see… it’s part of the nature of reality that anything you experience is automatically projected within the framework of your belief system. So if you’re a hard-nosed skeptic, the 11:11 phenomena must still be validly explainable according to your current beliefs. It cannot violate your beliefs, for that would violate the cosmic principle of free will. The universe cannot show you anything which you’ve intentionally chosen to block from your reality.
The philosophical assumption of subjective reality is fine by me. It’s the subsequent inconsistency of how that assumption is used that brings the silent screams of horror (emphasis mine):
11:11’s purpose is positive, although it may not seem that way when it first takes hold. It’s purpose is ultimately to destroy your belief in a physically grounded objectified reality. This makes it possible for you to discover and perceive more accurate ways of viewing reality.
Notice anything? On the one hand, reality is supposedly defined by belief. On the other, there can exist “more accurate ways” to perceive it (= beliefs about reality). How is it possible that a belief that defines reality is an inaccurate description of reality?!
Magic and mystical theories of everything are fine by me. But when you make a statement that a particular understanding of reality is “accurate” or “inaccurate”, please keep in mind that you are by implication saying that there exists an accurate, real, objective reality. Even if this hypothetical accurate reality would be nothing like the currently accepted scientific view of the Universe, it would still be “objective” if it was true.
It just irks me. Thank you for your attention.Related posts :