I agree it's misleading to say "I am the creator of my reality." It's fashionable in certain spiritualist circles to say this. Just because I am the protagonist of my story doesn't mean I was in control of everything which happened or everything which will happen. I guess in a looser sense you can say you created your world, in the sense that you made your life what it is out of the raw materials you were given. But even that is debatable!

I'm glad you see and feel how astounding it is, that this world exists, and I agree that it is hard to find people willing to talk about this. It's great to find a kindred spirit. It should not matter what belief system you follow, it is still amazing that any of this exists at all. Unfortunately certain fanatical religions may have the effect of dulling one's mind to the wonder of it all. I haven't seen "Wolf," but I'll try to check it out.

I like the idea that "each" of us is a point of view whereby the universe obverses itself, "feels" itself from the inside, experiences itself. And I like the idea that each point of view provides a different story. And within each story we can feel that amazement, that all of this can possibly exist. Maybe that is the highest experience you can have, even if you have an out-of-body experience, or if you are a super-hero, or a super-celebrity, or a mega-billionaire, or live beyond death, you can still be amazed that any of this exists at all.

Yes, I'm familiar with this idea of non-dualism; one way of expressing it might be that when "I" look at "something" it is really the universe looking at itself? And yes, Damir, I read your story. Thanks to both of you for reminding me of these things.

I agree that it is somewhat absurd (a bit of a leap of faith) to believe that consciousness came from non-consciousness. You seem to be also saying the opposite, that it is absurd to consider consciousness (subjectivity) begetting the objective (non-consciousness).

Then you say that consciousness is primary, because it is the condition of all revelation, which makes sense to me. I draw from all these things that all we can say is that we experience x and experience y, but that cannot lead us to conclude that these things are objective? This also reminds me of how quantum physicists, as they delve deeper and deeper into the "stuff" of which the universe is supposedly made, these physicists sometimes start to sound like spiritualists? Or it makes me think, if you and I agree that there is a Moon in the sky, but it's not "really" there (as an objective entity), but is just something about which we agree?

I also agree that there were a lot of prerequisites to "being in awe at the fact of existence": The universe had to already exist, I had to exist, I had to have a functioning mind, which implies the pre-requisite of time and language and society and thought. And the idea that I am captivated by aspects of existence which relate to something desirable makes sense to me, as I probably would not be so much in awe of existence if I were locked up in a small cell, or in some other state of severe suffering.

I guess it's kind of trendy to say "I am the creator of my reality," but I agree that the wording is a bit disagreeable! It's true to say that the only thing I know is my own experience. I agree that naming something (like Solipsism) doesn't discredit it; it wasn't my intention to discredit what you were saying.

As you said, it's difficult to say much about this matter, but I feel it's important to occasionally just notice that I/we/the world exist, and how astounding that is. I cannot do this all the time; I feel I just don't have enough mental energy for that. It's like a wave, in which I spend most of my time doing mundane activities, and occasionally come up to the top of the wave, which is when I bask in that awareness of existence. I can imagine making some sort of game of this, to try to do this more often, or using some kind of memory aids to remind myself to rise up and have this experience.

Sometimes I'll say to my wife, "isn't it astounding, that we exist at all?" And she'll say, "someone's been smoking weed." But she's just kidding; she knows what I'm talking about. Sometimes she'll say, "if we exist. Maybe we don't really exist." She's such a kidder.

I like to think that if I knew I was dying soon, I would have this experience a lot more often. But, in a way, we're all dying soon.
-Scott V.

Michael,
This reminds me of the idea that I am the creator of my own reality, and this universe I create has to be consistent, etc., etc.; isn't that solipsism? It also reminds me of the pop-metaphysics-spirituality of Jane Roberts (1929-84) and others.

Good stuff, but the issue I may have with consciousness being primary is that the physical universe came first; a lifeless universe. Then life appeared at some point, yada yada, ultimately my parents appeared, finally I was conceived, my brain developed, my mind developed, and my consciousness developed. So how is it primary?

I tried reading Heidegger's Metaphysics many years ago. It was tough going, and there was some conjecture that he was a Nazi, so I didn't get very far. Maybe I'll give it another try. I'll also look at Being and Time.

I mentioned Zen, and you guys (esp. gurugeorge) speak of how this kind of discussion seems more accepted in the East. I think reading Zen materials can be pertinent, but it can be hard to get to the real "bone" of Zen philosophy and separate it from the Buddhist rituals, which don't interest me so much.

It's kind of like that, or feeling amazed that this world exists at all! Or being astounded, that you exist at all.

Aleksander,
I guess by "being blown away," I mean feeling amazed that this world exists at all. Feeling astounded that I am an aware being, and that sort of thing. I hope that helps. I'm not sure if it's even really philosophy. I think it's a form of contemplation.
-Scott