|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 4:57:12 GMT -5
The body has blood, skin and bone....the mirror reflection is...a reflection. A rock by definition is made of something, and you know it is a rock and not a tree because of your knowledge of rocks and trees. No image stands alone,and there is no single and separate piece of knowledge. So reflection doesn't have anything inside, right? I am equating this reflection to our appearance. Then you are making a mistake because the mirror reflection still has qualities and properties, just not the same qualities and properties of the actual body. The meaning we give to the mirror reflection differs from the meaning we give to the actual body. If your current model, am image has no qualities and properties. This makes no sense, but as I said, I don't think you understand the relationship between perception and knowledge/meaning. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 4:58:31 GMT -5
So reflection doesn't have anything inside, right? I am equating this reflection to our appearance. Then you are making a mistake because the mirror reflection still has qualities and properties, just not the same qualities and properties of the actual body. The meaning we give to the mirror reflection differs from the meaning we give to the actual body. If your current model, am image has no qualities and properties. This makes no sense, but as I said, I don't think you understand the relationship between perception and knowledge/meaning. Mirror image is the best example for appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 4:58:40 GMT -5
No, the image in the mirror is known to be a reflection, so the properties it has differ from our actual body. But mirror image has the brain inside? No. The actual body has the brain inside. The mirror reflection has the qualities and properties of a mirror. The mirror doesn't stop being a mirror just because there is a reflection in it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 4:59:45 GMT -5
But mirror image has the brain inside? That's what I said appearance doesn't have brain inside. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 4:59:54 GMT -5
Both are true. One is absolutely true, one is relatively true. Either you are perceiving the world through your eye Or you are directly perceiving the world, both can't be true. Yes they can. This is what some people have been trying to tell you. It took me a while to get it too. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 5:00:34 GMT -5
Then you are making a mistake because the mirror reflection still has qualities and properties, just not the same qualities and properties of the actual body. The meaning we give to the mirror reflection differs from the meaning we give to the actual body. If your current model, am image has no qualities and properties. This makes no sense, but as I said, I don't think you understand the relationship between perception and knowledge/meaning. Mirror image is the best example for appearance. If that's the best youve got, you're in trouble hehe |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 5:03:42 GMT -5
Mirror image is the best example for appearance. If that's the best youve got, you're in trouble hehe Let me be in trouble. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 5:04:26 GMT -5
Either you are perceiving the world through your eye Or you are directly perceiving the world, both can't be true. Yes they can. This is what some people have been trying to tell you. It took me a while to get it too. Both can't be true. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 5:05:29 GMT -5
That's what I said appearance doesn't have brain inside. But the body that is looking in the mirror does not have the same properties as the reflection. One is a body, the other is a reflection. You know this....it has meaning to you. Either way though, they both have properties, which goes against your argument that an appearance has no properties. Even if I said that the mirror image was the same as the real body, it still has legs, arms, torso etc |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 5:09:21 GMT -5
Yes they can. This is what some people have been trying to tell you. It took me a while to get it too. Both can't be true. Yes they can. It is just a matter of context. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 5:18:26 GMT -5
That's what I said appearance doesn't have brain inside. But the body that is looking in the mirror does not have the same properties as the reflection. One is a body, the other is a reflection. You know this....it has meaning to you. Either way though, they both have properties, which goes against your argument that an appearance has no properties. Even if I said that the mirror image was the same as the real body, it still has legs, arms, torso etcYes, but why the hell is it not having brain? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 5:18:59 GMT -5
Yes they can. It is just a matter of context.  |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 17, 2016 5:32:16 GMT -5
But live people have real lived experiences. Once again, you are experiencing the movement of appearance. 'Experiencing the movement of appearance' is a convoluted way of saying 'experience'. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 6:00:20 GMT -5
Then you forgot where you entered, because in each case you morphed satchi's "the eyes see"/"the eyes know" into "the eyes are sense organs". You morphed satchi's "the eyes perceive" into "you cannot see without the eyes". And now you've morphed that. Conversations weave, but my point remains unchanged... .relatively the eyes are involved with perception. I am sure that was satchs point too. If gopal had said, yes that is true relatively but absolutely that is not the case......then there would likely have been no follow up. But noone argued the dooooofus guy point with you. Statements always have context, and gopals mistake was taking yours seriously as an interjection in his dialog with satch at the time. It's not the eyes that "see". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 6:09:55 GMT -5
Classic brown bear. In fact, the cartoon was subtitled "absolute and relative confusion". The brown bear sees the absolute as more valid, which is a confusion as to what constitutes the absolute context. The absolute transcends, it is fundamental, but not more valid. The brown bears confusion is partly from overthinking. Denying the tree is just a classic pointing to the absolute, but when he denies beauty, he's confused all appearances as undifferentiated. This is what you're doing by inviting a debate about which context is more valid. This confusion is also precisely what you expressed when you wrote this: The absolute transcends the relative by definition, but this creates a paradox. It means that they are equal. It means that emptiness is form, and form is emptiness. It means the relative is valid as the absolute. It means that it's ALL Divine, it's ALL Sacred, it's ALL God. There is not not one aspect that is more or less God than any other aspect. |
|
