|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 12:10:04 GMT -5
I think you gave me valid reason to breach it. Ok, I have to admit this is a fair point as there is a fine distinction involved. Please notice that I'm no longer interested in arguing with you about whether or not everyone has a belief in an objective reality. I haven't disagreed with you about that since we concluded the dialog where you first suggested that we would have to agree to disagree about it. Rather, my interest in these lines of dialogs is whether or not Gopal can fairly infer that Reefs has a belief in objective reality, and how Reefs' position may (or, if I'm wrong, may not) differ with yours on this one narrow point. Well, Gopal's definition isn't conventional. By 'objective reality' he means 'appearances appearing beyond your perception of them'. By that definition, it seems both Reefs and I would agree that there is an 'objective reality', and Gopal stated quite clearly that we are aligned on that matter. But by a different definition, it is possible of course that Reefs and I would diverge...I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 12:12:26 GMT -5
None of that is what I put in front of Gopal, this is what I put in front of Gopal: do you interpret what Reefs has written as Reefs describing his belief in an objective reality and his agreement with your point that that everyone has a belief in objective reality? Well first of all, the 'objective reality' we were discussing the other day was ALSO Gopal's definition. If you recall, I pointed out to him that he did believe in this objective reality, and that's when you got involved. I don't recall exploring whether my definition differed from Gopal's. Reefs has said he has no particular definition of 'objective reality', and he produced the dictionary definition to see if that's what everyone was discussing. From what I have observed, I would say that Reefs has a belief in what is being called 'camouflage', and sees clearly that this is the small context. Ok, well I take that as a "no" to the first question, qualified by a nuanced uncertainty, and a statement that you believe Reefs has a belief in a form of objective reality, without a definitive response to the 2nd. That's all fine, I don't need to understand your position any further, but fwiw, what I've got in front of Gopal really isn't dependent on the specific nuances of what any of us might mean by objective reality. The bottom line, is that I had no interest in a food fight when I raised all this, but rather, an interest in challenging Gopal's interpretation of what Reefs wrote.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 12:14:49 GMT -5
Well first of all, the 'objective reality' we were discussing the other day was ALSO Gopal's definition. If you recall, I pointed out to him that he did believe in this objective reality, and that's when you got involved. I don't recall exploring whether my definition differed from Gopal's. Reefs has said he has no particular definition of 'objective reality', and he produced the dictionary definition to see if that's what everyone was discussing. From what I have observed, I would say that Reefs has a belief in what is being called 'camouflage', and sees clearly that this is the small context. Ok, well I take that as a "no" to the first question, qualified by a nuanced uncertainty, and a statement that you believe Reefs has a belief in a form of objective reality, without a definitive response to the 2nd. That's all fine, I don't need to understand your position any further, but fwiw, what I've got in front of Gopal really isn't dependent on the specific nuances of what any of us might mean by objective reality. The bottom line, is that I had no interest in a food fight when I raised all this, but rather, an interest in challenging Gopal's interpretation of what Reefs wrote. Alright. Good thing I don't harshly judge how I pass my time hehe
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 12:21:27 GMT -5
I'd even go so far as to opine that he's never written anything of the sort, but all laughter is founded on absurdity, and laugh about it, he has. A murderer can laugh at his victims. The fact that laughter is founded on absurdity doesn't really tell us much about the nature of the humour. That's why I am asking you for a quote that illustrates your opinion. The extremity of your hypothetical combines the logical fallacies of the appeal to emotion with the false assumption that I need to justify the fact of the humor by explaining the nature of it, and in my opinion, in this specific case, it does.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 12:26:43 GMT -5
Ok, I have to admit this is a fair point as there is a fine distinction involved. Please notice that I'm no longer interested in arguing with you about whether or not everyone has a belief in an objective reality. I haven't disagreed with you about that since we concluded the dialog where you first suggested that we would have to agree to disagree about it. Rather, my interest in these lines of dialogs is whether or not Gopal can fairly infer that Reefs has a belief in objective reality, and how Reefs' position may (or, if I'm wrong, may not) differ with yours on this one narrow point. Well, Gopal's definition isn't conventional. By 'objective reality' he means 'appearances appearing beyond your perception of them'. By that definition, it seems both Reefs and I would agree that there is an 'objective reality', and Gopal stated quite clearly that we are aligned on that matter. But by a different definition, it is possible of course that Reefs and I would diverge...I don't know. Whatever. I'm not interested in trying to change your mind about any of this, the point is, that if we agree to disagree with one another, it's not really an agreement if one of us re-opens the point of disagreement. I still don't agree with you on the point, but I don't have any interest in arguing with you about it. And I'm not criticizing you for replying to a dialog were I mentioned you either. Not at all.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 12:27:30 GMT -5
Ok, well I take that as a "no" to the first question, qualified by a nuanced uncertainty, and a statement that you believe Reefs has a belief in a form of objective reality, without a definitive response to the 2nd. That's all fine, I don't need to understand your position any further, but fwiw, what I've got in front of Gopal really isn't dependent on the specific nuances of what any of us might mean by objective reality. The bottom line, is that I had no interest in a food fight when I raised all this, but rather, an interest in challenging Gopal's interpretation of what Reefs wrote. Alright. Good thing I don't harshly judge how I pass my time hehe It can get expensive, but, the interest rate is, what the interest rate is.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 12:28:28 GMT -5
A murderer can laugh at his victims. The fact that laughter is founded on absurdity doesn't really tell us much about the nature of the humour. That's why I am asking you for a quote that illustrates your opinion. The extremity of your hypothetical combines the logical fallacies of the appeal to emotion with the false assumption that I need to justify the fact of the humor by explaining the nature of it, and in my opinion, in this specific case, it does. The hypothetical is probably just a result of having 'Columbo' on in the background There are many examples I could give to show that humour can vary a lot. If you don't want to give a quote though, that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 10, 2018 12:30:01 GMT -5
Well, Gopal's definition isn't conventional. By 'objective reality' he means 'appearances appearing beyond your perception of them'. By that definition, it seems both Reefs and I would agree that there is an 'objective reality', and Gopal stated quite clearly that we are aligned on that matter. But by a different definition, it is possible of course that Reefs and I would diverge...I don't know. Whatever. I'm not interested in trying to change your mind about any of this, the point is, that if we agree to disagree with one another, it's not really an agreement if one of us re-opens the point of disagreement. I still don't agree with you on the point, but I don't have any interest in arguing with you about it. And I'm not criticizing you for replying to a dialog were I mentioned you either. Not at all. Okay.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2018 12:30:14 GMT -5
The extremity of your hypothetical combines the logical fallacies of the appeal to emotion with the false assumption that I need to justify the fact of the humor by explaining the nature of it, and in my opinion, in this specific case, it does. The hypothetical is probably just a result of having 'Columbo' on in the background There are many examples I could give to show that humour can vary a lot. If you don't want to give a quote though, that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 10, 2018 15:07:02 GMT -5
It has all the qualities / properties of steak because it is steak . Yes. I would say it like this 'if you are perceiving all the qualities/properties of steak, then you know what you are perceiving is steak'. Kind of obvious! Equally, if you are perceiving all the qualities/properties of a human being, then you know what you are perceiving is a human being! And vice versa applies. Yes eggsactly and when it's suggested that appearances are just appearances that arises in consciousness is just silly . It's fantasy . There isn't even the explanation how the steak landed on your plate .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 10, 2018 15:11:42 GMT -5
This is what understanding the nature of appearances has been all about isn't it . This is why I haven't had a straight answer in a year or so in regards to what structures / qualities / properties / substance is of the human heart for example. While peeps just pass things off as appearances only that arise miraculously out of nowhere they have a leg to stand on based upon this flawed premise . As soon as there is admittance to the structures / qualities / properties / substance of what appears it's game over . This is why the mountain doesn't disappear when you turn your back on it . The mountain has it's own properties as does gold, water, fire and trees . There cannot be the theory of things disappearing upheld as soon as they acknowledge that . This is why this conversation is on repeat mode The silly thing is, is that peeps don't even believe in the theory lol,That's why when they sit down for din dins they know the big fat juicy steak their going to eat is not just an appearance of steak . It has all the qualities / properties of steak because it is steak . The problem here is the context mix again. Trying to apply the what only works in the largest context to the SVP context. That's how you get weird conclusions and statements. So in a sense, the moon disappearing thingy is just another round of armchair philosophy again. I mean, we all know that Gopal does not believe that his house disintegrates when he leaves for work in the morning or that his wife goes poof as soon as he turns away and looks at the TV instead. No one lives like that. He's going to treat his house as if it is always there, and he is treating his wife as if she continues to exist (and even exists independently) even though he's not looking at her, in the same way that he has no choice but to treat her as if she is conscious. This has been my point from day 1 . No-one lives or believes in this armchair philosophy . No-one believes that their wife is not a real perceiver or things just arise in consciousness . I used to speak of environments often and still do to emphasise that the physical plane of existence has it's own governed rules in effect . That's why if what you are as an individual energy signature wants to experience physical life experience one must enter this physical reality in a specific way . One has to abide to the design of each species. I can't stress enough that this appearance stuff arising out of or in consciousness is such a crock .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 10, 2018 15:24:07 GMT -5
objective reality:The objective reality is the collection of things that we are sure exist independently of us. Every person is able, in principle, to verify every aspect of the objective reality. Anything that cannot be verified in this way is not part of the objective reality. What I have encountered in this regard is that there can't be anything existing in it's own right . The thing is that the moment there is a new life form that births into this existence one leaves this existence . Life and death is a cycle isn't it . The fact that an individual existence transcends this experience doesn't mean as a conscious perceiver that every other life form ceases to be . As individuals, individuals exist in there own right as individuals even though being in individual experience doesn't mean that anything is separate from what we are or all there is . All this jazz is based upon a physical experience that relates to our senses . Again this emphasises my point about environments .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 10, 2018 18:39:58 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure from what has been said that a cc 'realisation' is independent of any specific experience. Ok, so now, even in the context of recognizing the significance of the distinction between realization and experience, and even in the context of recognizing the underlying commonality as to what is realized, the point about the uniqueness of perspective still applies, and, specifically, it applies to how it cuts both ways as to the "does this person have a reference?" model, and how people compare their own understandings with the facets of those expressed by others. It's kinda like, experiencing is realised regardless of what the experience is. Everyone has a reference for that, so that shouldn't be inarguable. Perhaps with the cc thingy might have that same inarguability for those who have that. unique perspectives but still corn-chips right?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 10, 2018 19:21:56 GMT -5
2 issues. Those politically identified gender studies majors rallying about in their safe spaces who are trying to make the whole world their safe space are not actually advocating social justice. They claim to be, but they don;t know what they are doing because they are no social work gruduates. In their days work, that are not going to become involved in the dirt of abusive families, child removal, drug overdoses, suicides, violence of all sorts, trauma and other real-life issue which don't exist in their insular safe-bubbles. Then the libertarians, right viewed rich kids like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder, arc up in disgust (much like I do) and create the popular SJW narrative to degenerate identity politic screamers, but The Shapiros and Crowders of this world are equally highly opinionated people of privelidge with very clean hands. In the midst of it, the term 'social justice' changes meaning from an ethos based on Human Rights to a derogatory slur. Then the history of social work discourse which has worked to manifest a decent equitable society is undermined through association with the idiocy outlined in the two paragraphs above. This means all those 'dogooders' be they of identity politic or the right viewed are actually doing more harm than good...
In my experience, it's best to take all political discourse with a grain of salt, and understand it through the lens of people seeking power, and how that goal is the precise antithesis of the foundation of any sort of honest discussion. I don't find the gender-benders to be disgusting, at all, but people seem to have a natural tendency to want to demand the primacy of their personal perspective, and I'm not down with either side doing that. I did 3 Gender Studies units at university and received high distinctions... which is darn good for a white person who identifies as male, is heterosexually oriented and vanilla... And from that experience I can say that the illusion of personal perspective is projected, but there is actually a very dogmatic constructionist ideology. I couldn't frame sex in reproductive paradigms (because that's 'binary'), and I had to invent new terminology such as 'biological imperative'... I couldn't say "males and females are defined by biological reproduction that actually exists in nature" even though that's obviously true, because the whole lecture hall would turn and look at me like, "wow, did 'they' actually just say that?". I had to say it like, "A biological imperative impels culture to organise sex into binary categories (thought sex exists on a specrtum)".
Not only was Gender studies somewhat convoluted, the ideology spread through all the arts (liberal arts). I took 2 units of Aboriginal Studies and on my first class the tutor said 'lets go around the class and introduce ourselves and please say the gender pronoun you most identify with". I was like "Hi, I'm lolly, and I take Aboriginal Studies to complement my Social Work degree, and I identify as male, but you can refer to me as him, her, it, that or whatever you like"...
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 10, 2018 19:27:54 GMT -5
You pretend to be the expert but you never even had the cc thingy. Just have some imaginary impression of it and talk as if you know it fer realz. Correct. G. used to argue that NS was impossible because it violated his definition of awareness. He couldn't imagine that there could be pure awareness without content (without something to be aware of). Yet, NS has been discussed and described by sages for thousands of years, and most long-time meditators have entered that non-dual state. Without a reference there's no basis for knowledge. Socrates said that he only is wise in so far as when he doesn't know, he supposes he doesn't know. The fool supposes he does know when in fact he doesn't.
|
|