Do We Create Reality?

Image by Leandro De Corvalho

The dichotomy between reality being subjective and objective is false.

It could be said that reality is objective but that this objectivity is dynamic.

As subjects, we interpret this reality according to patterns. We make static things that actually move - even if this occurs in a way we don't see or in a way that takes too long for us to understand.

Spirituality and Solipsism

Spiritual culture in the West today is enamored with the idea of being able to create one's reality like a god.

The emotional and psychological needs this way of thinking fulfills are quite evident: life is full of suffering and people seek any narrative they can to justify this, excuse their own responses to this, or just numb them from having to deal with it.

The effect, though meant to deal with the problem (albeit in an inefficient way), is ultimately solipsistic, which is to say, it creates a much deeper existential crisis by denial of reality and by undermining the validity of one's suffering by making it totally arbitrary (existing solely in a finite mind, a vacuum of suffering).

But people want to perform feel-good magic tricks in which they tell themselves that they just have to 'believe' or 'manifest' something to make it happen in their lives. This assumes the world is connected to your mind in some causal way, which gives one the excuse to not actually pursue the end they say they want.

And if they don't pursue the end they want, they're not actually interested in understanding the truth one must encounter in order to know how to achieve that end.

It's an excuse to do nothing whilst resting on the false sanctimony of a posed hope.

The Dead End of Manifestation

We know this is true if we search deep down because anyone who has tried to manifest or create their reality through the sheer will of the mind has likely failed at this, even if they get it 'right' at times.

And if they fail, they're always led to believe that they just weren't believing hard enough or doing it well, even though there is logically nothing to suggest that a difference in degree should give way to a greater effect if the attitude of the mind is the main variable.

Some will even go so far as to condescend that 'It must not have been what you really wanted' if it didn't present itself to you.

If the objective in question was not what you 'really wanted,' then why all this talk of bringing things about through the will of the mind or by putting it out there? Wouldn't it be sufficient to discover what it is that one wants?

The Inescapability of Want

But 'want' and desire are fickle things. We often want things that are in conflict or which actively negate one another. In other words, we do not always want what we 'want.'

This is not to disparage wanting or desire but to suggest that there is an important element of reality that is often overlooked when it concerns acts of creation or action in general.

It is not that we generate reality from our imagination - especially since the imagination in terms of desire is often self-conflicted and even gets away from us, producing fear and, in turn, more suffering - but that we act and through action transform or bring about a new reality which was not present a moment before.

Changing Reality

The difference is subtle but important.

Reality presents itself to us as a phenomenon, full of passing objects. When we transform an object, we know we are acting upon it. An object that was lifeless before now serves a purpose.

But where does one get the impetus to transform an object? There was a fundamental potential that lay within the essence of that object, as an idea. To bring that idea into the world of phenomena is to act. Action is a relationship between what is and what will be. But what will be through action depends on the potential, which remains an idea if not acted upon.

Creating Reality

So how does this idea come about?

Philosophers have been trying to figure this out since the beginning. I'm not interested in offering a list of speculations, no matter how well reasoned. I'm more interested in the very relationship between that potential in the idea, and the very fact that an act can unlock its realization as an objective reality.

That potential would have to be understood on a fundamental level by the one acting in order for it to come into full realization of itself.

It is here that the distinction between 'objective reality' and 'subjective reality' finds their Prius in the agent for which action is, not just a possibility, but the defining potential.

If I am determined or 'created' by reality, it is only in a rather crude and passive manner in which I have not yet realized my potential as one who acts - as one who brings other potentialities into the domain of phenomena by transforming them from idea to reality.

To be able to act upon something is to be confronted with an undeniable conviction. It is not a 'how to' or a 'meaning,' but rather a true 'what' in an objective sense, whose existence negates it as an idea and affirms it as actuality or reality.

Action is destructive and creative, as it is a negation of a reality in which an idea remains an idea and it is creative in bringing this idea into actual existence.

It could be said that we create our reality only potentially, insofar as it is possible to transcend the default passivity presented to us by transforming what is through idea and action.