Okay. So, I'm tempted to respond. In fact, I would go even as far as dropping my bad habit of dropping capitals and interpunction.
You see, I love philosphy
Seriously!
Yes.
Go here if you don't belive me:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bluez/personal/semanti1.htm
When looking at the commercial
I couldn't help but disagree, and smile at a certain point. There's a strange thing in there, which is quite common and very human. He's inconsistent.
The good part is where he explains that everything we perceive is processed, or filtered. Which I do agree with. But, and here he goes 'metaphysical', there's no such thing as a 'direct' 'unfiltered' connection to the world around us. It's ALWAYS filtered.
So yes. We are what we are. Ego's locked up in a box.
So, we are all different, because we all experienced and experience different inputs, which, in turn, forms us. In other words, we are the sum of our experiences. (Ah, existentialism, just when we need it.)
Now, there are some consequences of the above. First of all, what is reality? What is the world around us? We don't know for sure. We just know that the world WE see is what we get through our filtered inputs. If we take this one step further, it means that every 'world perceived' is different. So, there are as many worlds as there are perceivers. (Heh, I neatly stepped around the world 'observer', as that would mean there would be something such as an observer, but as all input is filtered one cannot be objective
)
Is one perception better than another one? No! Is one more accurate than another one? Again, no. So one could argue that there is not a single all encompassing definite reality. Reality is different to every person. Hmmm. Let me leave this part for now.
Still with me? Okay. Next step. Assume that we are the results of all that input. Now take that one step further. If we respond to outside input, our reactions will differ, depending on our previous experiences. And here comes a trick which I think does make a big difference...
Reactions. Reflexes.
Previous input has conditioned our output, meaning that some actions take place on a subconscious level, automatic. Some of them are for our safety (keep your balance or you topple over, don't put your hand in the fire). Some of them are conditioned (guilt, blame, stick to the right side of the road, or the left
).
So, now we got filters that filter the input, and automatic reactions that react to that filtered input, and we use that filtered input to reprogram our filters. Again and again.
Goodie. That's a dangerous thought.
If we allow filtered input to program our filters, we're going to get... euh... double filtered? That's a scary thought, isn't it? We start loosing control.
Goody, I hate that.
But here's step one. It's an easy one. If we are AWARE of our 'filtering' we may be able to affect that filtering. It will always be there (the filter), but we won't blindly accept the 'filtered' reality it as 'the' reality. Perhaps we can adjust our view of the world, our filters, thus adjusting our view of reality, thus, in fact, adjusting reality itself... (Which is personal anyway, remember?)
Now take step two. If we now we 'filter' reality ourselves, we may also take a look at our reactive patterns, our responses. How many of those make sense? Which ones are automatic responses, stuff we conditioned ourselves to do? Can we change them? Should we change them?
This awareness makes a BIG difference. If you're not aware, your behaviour would become automatic. Finely tuned, perfectly adjusted, but still automatic. And you might not be aware...
Back to that little Kabbala commercial... read the above, then watch the video again. Just like me you start to loose track at the part where he goes on to the 'will to bestow' track. He assumes there is one world for all, and that world is definite to all of us. Thus, 'perceive the greater reality' would in his worldview make sense. In HIS worldview...
And that's where I beg to differ. I do NOT think there is a ruleset for all of us, that applies to all our worlds.
Ah. Now does that make sense?
Oh, darn. I forgot to tell you why I think he's inconsistent. Well, he confirms that we are ego's in a box (and that's EGO, NOT EGOISM) that each suffer from different filtering. In other words, each ego experiences a different world. How, if those worlds are different, with different rules, can HIS set of rules be applied to all OUR worlds?
(Added.) The first part (before the first 'the end') is pretty good and makes good sense. What comes after that needs a makeover involving the lead character and some concrete boots
Perhaps I should now rest my case
