Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:54:47 GMT -5
He just stated that only the absolute is true, that two opposing ideas cannot be true, therefore there is no truth to the idea that eyes are involved in seeing. Notice how you have to go through an indirect logical process to put those words into his mouth.  I must congratulate you on how well you do this. Practice does make perfect, after all.   |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 7:55:51 GMT -5
Well the first error is to compare an appearance to a mirror reflection, because a mirror reflection is a mirror reflection, not a body. Does this head that can be broken have the property of breakable bone? Does this head have a skull? Does it have eyes? I am comparing the appearance with image reflection, that would be best example of appearance. I know, it is a mistake. But let's go with it. When you see a body, it has properties and qualities. That's how you know it is a body. You know it by what it has and what it doesn't have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:57:36 GMT -5
I understand that in the absolute context, that brains and sensory organs are appearances. It is a simple idea to understand. But in your attempt to show that there is no relative context, you create a huge mess for yourself. Gopal is an appearance, correct? Tell me about this appearance, if this appearance has no physical body, no brain, no skin etc......? You also talk about gopal in India, gopal that walks and watches movies, gopal that programs computers. i could tell you a hundred things about gopal that gopal has told me. And now you say this same gopal appearance has no body, yet photos of gopal are posted with hair and glasses. You see the absurdity? Maybe this will help. Let's equate appearance to a reflection in a mirror. appearance = reflection. Does the reflection have a body? No, obviously. Simple, the reflection is merely a reflection, merely an appearance. So Gopal is saying all we ever ~see~ are merely "reflections". Gopal says that which "casts" the reflection comes from Consciousness (only). Idealistically, Gopal's position is irrefutable. Now, andrew and sdp consider it the case that a ~real~ world (or a relatively real world) is what is casting the reflection (in an individuated consciousness). All we can do is say we disagree (although I'm sure I'm right, Gopal can't be refuted, try as you might). If you understand what he is saying, he cannot ve refuted. (But of course he has hundreds of loose ends he just does not care about, he just disregards these. We can't do anything about his choice to leave loose ends). But he is not going to understand why my position can't be refuted. Atleast understanding my position is important. But Andrew will not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 7:58:45 GMT -5
He was very very clear that two opposing ideas cannot be true. He does not think it is true in any context that the eyes are involved with seeing. Im guessing he doesnt understand context but also doesnt want to learn. Your defence has no merit here dude. This isn't a a defense pal.  The two opposing ideas you want to be true are just the mental confusion had from overthinking the pointer of "direct perception". This conclusion isn't supported by what gopal wrote, but here again, I applaud your skill at expressing a convincing illusion. Me too. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 7:59:21 GMT -5
This isn't a a defense pal. The two opposing ideas you want to be true are just the mental confusion had from overthinking the pointer of "direct perception". This conclusion isn't supported by what gopal wrote, but here again, I applaud your skill at expressing a convincing illusion. There's no confusion at all. The first true statement is that the eyes are involved in seeing. The second true statement is that they eyes are not involved in seeing. Gopal only sees one of these ideas as true, he has been very clear on this. You are a decent litigator but the evidence is right there, so maybe it is time for the lawyer to step down. We can always get the defendant back to confirm that he stands by what he said. . The two statements were "(1) we perceive the world through our eye or (2) we are directly perceiving the world". These aren't always both true for every peep in all instances. Literally speaking, (1) is always true. Whether (2) is true depends on what's meant by the pointer of "direct perception". Sorry if my opposition to your conclusions is annoying you, but for you to complain about my litigiousness at this point is quite hypocritical.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:02:04 GMT -5
Your image is metaphorical, andy's image is literal, and then related to the metaphor by way of stitching together an imagined set of parts. I don't understand why Andrew finds so much difficulty to understand this simple logic, I am not dealing with relative or absolute, I am talking about what's the truth. Either 1) We are looking through the eye 2) we are directly looking Both can't be true. Both statements are the truth, one relatively so, one absolutely so. Is it true that gopal lives in India? Is it true that gopal wears glasses? Is it true that gopal likes Pepsi? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:03:09 GMT -5
Your image is metaphorical, andy's image is literal, and then related to the metaphor by way of stitching together an imagined set of parts. I don't understand why Andrew finds so much difficulty to understand this simple logic, I am not dealing with relative or absolute, I am talking about what's the truth. Either 1) We are looking through the eye 2) we are directly looking Both can't be true. ok but that was last weeks dialog today he's tricked you into saying that peripheral peeps don't have brains. ps: Nostradamus predicts that there will be several choir voices that will amplify that tune over the next 50 pages ...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 8:04:24 GMT -5
I am comparing the appearance with image reflection, that would be best example of appearance. I know, it is a mistake. But let's go with it. When you see a body, it has properties and qualities. That's how you know it is a body. You know it by what it has and what it doesn't have. Appearance are appearing in same way as image of the mirror is appearing to you. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:05:36 GMT -5
There's no confusion at all. The first true statement is that the eyes are involved in seeing. The second true statement is that they eyes are not involved in seeing. Gopal only sees one of these ideas as true, he has been very clear on this. You are a decent litigator but the evidence is right there, so maybe it is time for the lawyer to step down. We can always get the defendant back to confirm that he stands by what he said. . The two statements were "(1) we perceive the world through our eye or (2) we are directly perceiving the world". These aren't always both true for every peep in all instances. Literally speaking, (1) is always true. Whether (2) is true depends on what's meant by the pointer of "direct perception". Sorry if my opposition to your conclusions is annoying you, but for you to complain about my litigiousness at this point is quite hypocritical. Make it those two sentences if you prefer, they are both true too in context. Which I know you agree with because you then try and wiggle a bit with the statement 'in all instances'. It makes no difference. Both those statements are valid. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:08:56 GMT -5
I don't understand why Andrew finds so much difficulty to understand this simple logic, I am not dealing with relative or absolute, I am talking about what's the truth. Either 1) We are looking through the eye 2) we are directly looking Both can't be true. ok but that was last weeks dialog today he's tricked you into saying that peripheral peeps don't have brains. ps: Nostradamus predicts that there will be several choir voices that will amplify that tune over the next 50 pages ... They don't have eyes either apparently. Gopal has dug his own hole on this one, it's not my fault his model is flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:11:00 GMT -5
Now you've directly contradicting yourself from a world that you know defined by it's constituent parts. The world we know is a world of meaning and to describe that as constituent parts is a mistake. A word association game illustrates the point. Body, brain, head, face, eyes, torso, lungs, air, oxygen, trees, earth, water, planet, universe.
There is no actual separation dude, you might want to bin the idea of constituent parts. That's amusing because it was your idea.  .. now you're trying to obscure that by hiding behind "STOP RIGHT THERE: there is no separation".  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 8:12:40 GMT -5
I know, it is a mistake. But let's go with it. When you see a body, it has properties and qualities. That's how you know it is a body. You know it by what it has and what it doesn't have. Appearance are appearing in same way as image of the mirror is appearing to you. Only because light reflects off the silvered glass. If an image of a tree appears in my consciousness that is because I am seeing a real tree in the real outer word with my real eyes. If you disagree prove it is not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:12:41 GMT -5
The world we know is a world of meaning and to describe that as constituent parts is a mistake. A word association game illustrates the point. Body, brain, head, face, eyes, torso, lungs, air, oxygen, trees, earth, water, planet, universe.
There is no actual separation dude, you might want to bin the idea of constituent parts. That's amusing because it was your idea. .. now you're trying to obscure that by hiding behind "STOP RIGHT THERE: there is no separation". No, I've been arguing that images and appearances are not separate. You have been defending gopals idea that they are. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:13:24 GMT -5
Maybe this will help. Let's equate appearance to a reflection in a mirror. appearance = reflection. Does the reflection have a body? No, obviously. Simple, the reflection is merely a reflection, merely an appearance. So Gopal is saying all we ever ~see~ are merely "reflections". Gopal says that which "casts" the reflection comes from Consciousness (only). Idealistically, Gopal's position is irrefutable. Now, andrew and sdp consider it the case that a ~real~ world (or a relatively real world) is what is casting the reflection (in an individuated consciousness). All we can do is say we disagree (although I'm sure I'm right, Gopal can't be refuted, try as you might). If you understand what he is saying, he cannot ve refuted. (But of course he has hundreds of loose ends he just does not care about, he just disregards these. We can't do anything about his choice to leave loose ends). Yes. I'm not going so far in this conversation to argue for a real world, my key point is just that one is experienced, and that denying relative truths that pertain to this experience is a problem. Not to mention a straw giraffe.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 8:14:45 GMT -5
What's he reading The Holy Trinity of Bears? Papa Bear, Baby Bear and Holy Consciousness Bear? Nah, he's just obsessed with the best recipe for porridge.  |
|
.. now you're trying to obscure that by hiding behind "STOP RIGHT THERE: there is no separation".