|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:17:24 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. I agreed to go with it even though it is wrong. When I look at the body in the mirror it has qualities and properties. I know it is a body by these qualities and properties. If the body was absent a brain, it would look like a dead body. What you see is informed by the totality of your experience and knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:18:30 GMT -5
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.   It is always obvious when the lawyer has lost. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:20:04 GMT -5
Incorrect. 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. Who's having a problem with context now?  At least acknowledge the morph if you're gonna' back away from it. In order for someone to agree that you can both perceive through the eyes and directly perceive at the same time they'd have to first agree with you on what you mean by "direct perception". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:22:09 GMT -5
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 ...  either apparently. Gopal has dug his own hole on this one, it's not my fault his model is flawed. You can repeat this endlessly but that won't make it a fact of the dialog.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:25:21 GMT -5
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. Who's having a problem with context now? At least acknowledge the morph if you're gonna' back away from it. In order for someone to agree that you can both perceive through the eyes and directly perceive at the same time they'd have to first agree with you on what you mean by "direct perception". You can squirm all you like here, gopal has made it extremely clear that two opposing ideas involving eyes and perception cannot both be true. When of course they can. You want to complicate this because..well...you've invested some energy in his defence and you hate it when I am right, but gopal couldn't have made it clearer to us. At this point you really should change the plee from innocent to guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:26:44 GMT -5
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. You can repeat this endlessly but that won't make it a fact of the dialog. I guess it is only what he said himself. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:28:37 GMT -5
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. LOA mantra? Seriously? Your idea of a totality of meaning was to stitch together a set of mind-made object boundaries, so what you and I each mean by an "absence of separation" is, quite obviously very different, despite that it's expressed using the exact same three words. Mr. Brown Bear.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:30:13 GMT -5
Nah, he's just obsessed with the best recipe for porridge.  ok ok ok. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 8:30:29 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. 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? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 8:31:11 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 ... Nostradamus predicts, yes.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 8:33:37 GMT -5
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. You know this is the useless argument, are you sure that you would like participate? If so, put a signature that you would not shout later that "it's useless argument'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:33:47 GMT -5
No, I've been arguing that images and appearances are not separate. You have been defending gopals idea that they are. LOA mantra? Seriously? Your idea of a totality of meaning was to stitch together a set of mind-made object boundaries, so what you and I each mean by an "absence of separation" is, quite obviously very different, despite that it's expressed using the exact same three words. I don't click your links to be clear, but appearances and meaning are absent of separation in the way that the roots of a tree are not separate from the trunk. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2016 8:34:23 GMT -5
Not to mention a straw giraffe. It is always obvious when the lawyer has lost. Nice meme, but just because your friends like and admire the illusion you've conjured of some peeps making a problem of the relative doesn't make it anything other than a fantasy. In fact, really, this is just the flip side to that coin, where you ignore the problems and ills of the material world by dismissing all of that by way of the absolute: 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. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 17, 2016 8:34:48 GMT -5
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? Is that a laughing yes or a laughing no, or a laughing yes and no? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 8:36:51 GMT -5
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. You know this is the useless argument, are you sure that you would like participate? If so, put a signature that you would not shout later that "it's useless argument'. The proof I have real eyes is my experience. If these eyes are not real, where is your proof? |
|
At least acknowledge the morph if you're gonna' back away from it. In order for someone to agree that you can both perceive through the eyes and directly perceive at the same time they'd have to first agree with you on what you mean by "direct perception". 
