One can, of course, perceive the reality of an illusion - perhaps the 'notwithSATANding' above!
On 25 Mar, 09:26, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > What the topic raises ( uh, umpteen time ! ) is that, while the " > thing i.e.reality " is never in doubt, we yet do not know what it is. > What it appears, in experience or science, is only what we see, > believe, surmise or establish ( on concrete consequential evidence, > too ), is just that : appearance. > > For most of us, this appearance of reality is adequate. Very, very few > refuse to rest at that ; they want to know the reality, as it is, not > as it appears, believability notwithsatanding. > > Yes, KC, Space and Time is what we understand, define and take it to > be. They are a part or, more exactly, features of the " appearance." > > On Mar 25, 12:14 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That's really only the start of the argument Craig, though a sensible > > introduction that assumes a circular form rather too quickly. Most > > arguments like this 'return to the subject', yet within subjectivity > > we then insist on objectivity - relativity insisting that it describes > > space-time everywhere and so on. Actor-network theory (for instance) > > claims to be ontologically relativist and epistemologically empiricist > > - which is not a statement of there being no reality apart from space- > > time, but rather one that allows speculation on the nature of reality > > under rules of evidence. In principle, legal systems operate in a > > similar matter, being led to conclusion by evidence (though in reality > > they are often really a mess of lies and human interests- that is > > ideological). Modern relativism has reached a conclusion a bit like > > yours in that it believes the reality hypothesis is implicit in its > > reasoning, questioning what appears the inevitable theory-ladenness of > > observations. I suspect we would often agree on what the evidence in > > a case is, assuming we could get some reliable investigation done - > > that is we assume there is common ground and crucial evidence. It > > could be interesting here to compare a criminal case with the > > scientific case that we live in a world that is a shadow of reality. > > > On 25 Mar, 02:36, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Reality is a word that has meaning. Where did that meaning come > > > from? Hasn't it come from our experience? What kind of experience > > > could we have other than an experience in space and time? There is no > > > reality apart from space and time. They are implicit in the very > > > notion of reality.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
