as i wear these sunglasses in the evening on my way back from groceries, these sunglasses have this UV filter or some sort of filter that makes things look more crisp and vivid and intense, and i thought to myself what if it's possible and if i get normal glasses that has this filter, this intense that makes everything seem richer, (even now it's funny that i say “seem” richer), i have the l thought “oh why do i want to “enhance reality” reality is beautiful as it is and i shouldn't have to color it up to make it better, i should just see reality AS IT IS with my naked eyes. but how do i know that the eyes themselves aren't lenses? what makes me think that the naked eye is seeing reality as it really is? what makes “color enhancing” (to even say that term is a fallacy to this point) less real than the naked eye? where is base reality? even my naked eyes can't resolve reality, i need corrective wear.
so the terrifying thought comes to mind--i hold the assumption that wearing sunglasses in the dark makes things more dark, but what if that's how reality actually is? what if sunglasses are the true corrective lenses? is there such thing as correction? is there a base? or do we only want to “correct” for optimization of flourishing of reality. that is to say, i know wear glasses because it allowed me to see “sharper” instead of “as it really is” so it can optimize my consciousness to flourish. who is to say blurry vision is not how reality is? is it because it isn't congruent with other senses?
but to extend, perhaps there is a congurence between flourishing of being and what reality really is. that it is on and the same...to see things clearly and in a way that leads to well-being and optimization of ones living IS reality itself. so if i invent a pair of glasses that ENHANCES vision, allowing me to absorb in more information, that means i see more real than what currently exists. BUT THIS MEANS WHAT YOU SEE THROUGH SUNGLASSES ARE MORE REAL THAN ORDINARY SUNGLASSES OR THE NAKED EYE WHEN YOU ARE IN AN UNCOMFORTABLELY BRJGHT LIGHT. MORE REAL BUT THAT MEANS REALITY ISNT ACTUALLY BRIGHT WHEN I WEAR SUNGLASSES that means reality is more real when i wear sunglasses in bright light because thatallows me to be morefunctional and see more of reality...! if i put flourishing of well-being as the definition of reality itself, that means when the sun is too bright outside it isn't actually too bright--it's just a design flaw of my eyes to not be able resolve the light.
but then this breaks down shared reality. cause someone else waking on the sidewalk not wearing glasses.
access to mods information is an indicator for what's more real? or to extend, is it that then this more information can then lead to MORE flourishment of being/consciousness?
so then see both realities true--if i am wearing sunglasses because it is too bright for me, what i see is not a dimmed reality, but what reality actually is for ME at that moment in time, and that the other person on the sidewalk who doesn't need glasses cause their eyes/brain can take the otherwise heavy sensory load, and then that is THEIR REALITY? but then perhaps this leads to the same outcome experimentally LOL. like it's not that i see something dimmer than they, or that they see a brighter reality. we actually then see the same thing? like their eyes were already tuned to be dimmer than mine, and which is why they were okay with it. since it's the same consciousness or perception or comfortable ness of the brightness. is it the signature of something being too bright, or too loud in terms of uncomfortableness that is what is being attenuated here? wow, so we literally just went full circle, started with questioning reality, which then broke down reality and shared reality, only to come back to a resolution of shared reality...
and also in reality the discrepancy between people’s eyes is really small, so i don't see a likely scenario that something is too bright for someone and not for someone else on a hot day, and if there is such a person, that just makes them an outlier and means something is up with their eyes.
but it does make you think what is base reality then--between bright and dark days. if not wearing sunglasses leads to less access to info and thus less flourishing of my consciousness, or of aggregate consciousness in a given room/context, then wearing sunglasses yields a truer reality than not. so then the sun isn't ACTUALLY bright (it is brighter yes), just my eyes require adjustment. so does this mean that when the sun goes out that reality is actually dark? (it's darker for sure). what if i wear night vision goggles that then allows me to see things again as normal as they were when the sun was out--like a rendered virtual sun. does this mean that to see light-and light at the RIGHT level, is consistent across time? say if wearing advanced optimized sunglasses during the day and advanced optimized night vision glasses at night yield the SAME result. does that mean that that THAT is base reality?
- so does that mean nighttime, dark, isn't real? since i cannot see much ofanything? no. for most humans sure it isn't the ideal scenerio, but for me cause i'm awesome i love the dark and the dark night time energy, but on a real reason--because the nighttime is important for other species, and thus as a whole sacrifice must be made where there is an cycle, a period of time in which a certain portion of the day works for some, and not for others, and vice versa. because this seems to balance out earth and the food chain and other systems, and thus in the aggregate: BOTH DAY AND NIGHTTIME ARE THUS REAL! cause sacrifice has to be made. WOW! really came full circle! THE OVERCOMING OF SOLIPSISM! my immediate unoptimzied sensory inputs that don't yield my personal flourishing of being doesn't mean it isn't real! so even to the individual that isn't optimized, it is still real,
cause this condition of being (sun being bright or non existent) was necesssry for the overall aggregate collective species on earth. and as such it may be too bright, so i can wear personal corrective measures.
so what's real is what's true for collective vs. just individual.
but hmmm….going back the individual experience side of things...what i see when things are fully optimized for me is also what should be what others see when things are fully optimized for them too no?
i'm a bat! i'm a bat!
i guess the idea of oneness really terrifies me...
so me staring at the UAD apollo--it is an expression of a deeper reality, not reality itself. as a bat would see it too but differently. deepak chopras interview with michael shermer.
seeing things as they are: can be applied to everything. like my father is my father, and everyone's father would look like my father, therefore i am the only thing that exists .
and this applies to all things - tastes/preferences/etc. as such wouldn't it all reduce to me? like me loving my mind in hearing music-like i cannot imagine being ankther person existing who likes something else and feels the same thing. or likes the same thing but feels something different. to have the same flavor of love or favorite ness
extracting out the substrate of "favorite" -is it the same for everybody? is it a field in which we borrow or cone in and out if, or share?
so everybody is literally just me.