|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2015 9:49:51 GMT -5
An interesting discussion, although diverged from the topic. The confusion comes from mixing two things: objective reality and physical reality. An objective reality doesn't exist. Everyone, from a human being to an ant to a bacteria - perceives the world around subjectively. The way a tree looks to me - will look, feel, taste, smell - different to an ant. My 'green-ness of a leaf is not the same as yours. We agree it is a green approximation. Consider colourblind people. Consider how a dog is supposed to have a grey scale vision, but its sense of smell will put a human to shame. BUT. An absence of objective reality doesn't mean an absence of physical reality. We simply cannot percieve it directly, the Mind distorts the message. But it exists. If you think otherwise..... wait until you are on a morphine drip from an excruciating pain. Goran got carried away a tad. I tried to read his book way back... doesn't resonate. That morphine drip gets in the way. Physical reality isn't objective, there is no reality that mind can grasp, and the truth is neither subjective nor objective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 11:26:21 GMT -5
Physical reality isn't objective, there is no reality that mind can grasp, and the truth is neither subjective nor objective. Hi Laughter. I'm not interested enough in this stuff to get into anything resembling a debate here (also, I don't think it's conclusively resolvable) but I'd be interested in your thoughts on one particular aspect of this. So I have a question (or two.) Let's say that I'm standing in my garden with my daughter looking at a tree. From our individuated outlooks we both see the appearance of (what we call) a tree. From my individuated outlook (outlook A) I also see (the appearance of) my daughter - who has her own individuated outlook (outlook B.) 1. Would you in fact say that there is no outlook B? And if so, wouldn't that amount to solipsism? 2. If you agree that there is an outlook B, isn't that, in some sense, a form of realism?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2015 11:26:26 GMT -5
Physical reality isn't objective, there is no reality that mind can grasp, and the truth is neither subjective nor objective. No 'flavour'. That's a matter of taste -- subjectivity and objectivity do still come and go, after all -- but it's definitely lo cal.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2015 11:30:25 GMT -5
Physical reality isn't objective, there is no reality that mind can grasp, and the truth is neither subjective nor objective. Hi Laughter. I'm not interested enough in this stuff to get into anything resembling a debate here (also, I don't think it's conclusively resolvable) but I'd be interested in your thoughts on one particular aspect of this. So I have a question (or two.) Let's say that I'm standing in my garden with my daughter looking at a tree. From our individuated outlooks we both see the appearance of (what we call) a tree. From my individuated outlook (outlook A) I also see (the appearance of) my daughter - who has her own individuated outlook (outlook B.) 1. Would you in fact say that there is no outlook B? And if so, wouldn't that amount to solipsism? 2. If you agree that there is an outlook B, isn't that, in some sense, a form of realism? I would agree that there is an outlook B, and that denial of that outlook is solipsistic. Please regard that I stated that there is no reality that mind can grasp. If what I wrote implies a form of realism, it's a reality found by answering the question "what are other people?", which is really just a form of self-inquiry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2015 11:33:15 GMT -5
Hi Laughter. I'm not interested enough in this stuff to get into anything resembling a debate here (also, I don't think it's conclusively resolvable) but I'd be interested in your thoughts on one particular aspect of this. So I have a question (or two.) Let's say that I'm standing in my garden with my daughter looking at a tree. From our individuated outlooks we both see the appearance of (what we call) a tree. From my individuated outlook (outlook A) I also see (the appearance of) my daughter - who has her own individuated outlook (outlook B.) 1. Would you in fact say that there is no outlook B? And if so, wouldn't that amount to solipsism? 2. If you agree that there is an outlook B, isn't that, in some sense, a form of realism? I would agree that there is an outlook B, and that denial of that outlook is solipsistic. Please regard that I stated that there is no reality that mind can grasp. If what I wrote implies a form of realism, it's a reality found by answering the question "what are other people?", which is really just a form of self-inquiry. Okay, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2015 11:37:03 GMT -5
I would agree that there is an outlook B, and that denial of that outlook is solipsistic. Please regard that I stated that there is no reality that mind can grasp. If what I wrote implies a form of realism, it's a reality found by answering the question "what are other people?", which is really just a form of self-inquiry. Okay, thanks. Sure, sure .. if my tone sometimes seem strident it's just a residue from years of dialog here. I't's actually very easy to come to an agreement to disagree with me.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2015 12:01:54 GMT -5
That's a matter of taste -- subjectivity and objectivity do still come and go, after all -- but it's definitely lo cal. This statement doesn't make sense, considering that you said 'the truth is neither subjective nor objective.' The truth doesn't make sense. It's not conceptual. What particular contradiction did you have in mind?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 12, 2015 12:07:55 GMT -5
Sure, sure .. if my tone sometimes seem strident it's just a residue from years of dialog here. I't's actually very easy to come to an agreement to disagree with me. No, i've tried that..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2015 12:17:39 GMT -5
The truth doesn't make sense. It's not conceptual. What particular contradiction did you have in mind? This doesn't make sense: "the truth is neither subjective nor objective" followed by "subjectivity and objectivity do still come and go"... they do not connect. Like a leap from one context to another. Truth DOES make sense. SENSE, something which comes from within, the gut. Not the conceptual Mind. What comes and goes isn't the truth.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2015 12:37:30 GMT -5
What comes and goes isn't the truth. This is not the answer. Can you please explain the phrase flow and what you meant by it. "the truth is neither subjective nor objective" followed by "subjectivity and objectivity do still come and go"... In terms of the words on their face: what comes and goes is what appears to us by way of the senses. This is subjective in that no two sensory perceptions are exactly alike, and objective in that these can be compared between perspectives. None of that is the truth: what comes and goes isn't the truth, but it still comes and goes. You're right that the flow of the dialog involved a context flip, and if you want I'll break that down for you, but not in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 12, 2015 12:49:42 GMT -5
In terms of the words on their face: what comes and goes is what appears to us by way of the senses. This is subjective in that no two sensory perceptions are exactly alike, and objective in that these can be compared between perspectives. None of that is the truth: what comes and goes isn't the truth, but it still comes and goes. You're right that the flow of the dialog involved a context flip, and if you want I'll break that down for you, but not in this thread. Thank you, I wanted to confirm the context flip. It happens all the time when humans 'communicate', and can be confusing. The reason for all these unnecessarily lengthy threads. Plus the Ego of course. Yes, Truth is, no coming and going. Always ever an opportunity.
|
|