Yes Lee, a good analysis...and, you help to make the point that a table is 'empty' of being a table since it is not inherently one...in other words, it wasn't one a while ago and it won't be one later.
As to skepticism, for many centuries it was used in conjunction with finding the divine...then those who are not aware of the divine posited there was no such thing and set up a 'logic' to support their view...or lack thereof. 2:53 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Interesting OM. > > The whole skeptic thing is a handy philosophical tool to use and I > have spent some time in a skeptical frame of mind. A few years ago I > was thinking abotu how we percive things and whether or not we percive > then as they truely are. > > It was reading Dawin that caused me to make up my mind on this issue. > It seems evolutionary lunacy to have evolved our senses so that what > we percive is not really the way things are. To look at a lion and > percive it as anything other than a muscle bound creature with sharp > teeth and claws could likely end in the man being inside the lions > belly. > > To asscertian then the truth of what is a table, we really only need > one other person to confirm the shape and dimensions of it. It's use > is due to its form, it is a table because another human has shaped it > to be used as a table. It's use can of course change as well as it's > shape and dimensions, but not without outside intervention. Even when > the table has been thrown out and eventualy rots into the earth, it > does so not out of any 'will' that it may posses but because of > external influences upon it. > > On 9 Sep, 09:14, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So, we have been addressing quite a few rather heady topics recently. > > I thought that in order to help some of the materialists get up to > > speed philosophically, I would start a topic on emptiness. This notion > > is near the core of much I have been writing recently. It directly > > addresses the nature of reality in a scientific way albeit with a > > different approach than that which can be addressed by the science > > most are familiar with. > > > Why would one say or even suggest that the brain is not where > > consciousness resides? Why would one suggest that what we feel and > > see is in fact not there? …valid questions. And, little within the > > western tradition of philosophy will address these and other > > metaphysical issues…except perhaps science when it comes to the actual > > nature of things say physically exist…and, of course, this does > > include ‘us’…and our brains, thus that which many demand is the seat > > of consciousness. So…here I ask you to become a true skeptic and > > examine very closely the things you see and feel. What is the nature > > of a table? Does it exist? How do we know a table is a table? Does a > > table ever change what it is? Etc. > > > To get a better view of some of the issues for those willing to take > > the red pill and not remain in the habit of eating blue pills, I will > > introduce you to one of the greatest philosophers of all time, > > Nagarjuna. Vam may have some clear and perhaps opposing views, and, I > > hope for a lively discussion. > > > How could he come to find that emptiness is the ultimate cosmology? > > Why would you not agree with him? > > >http://www.iep.utm.edu/nagarjun/http://bahai-library.com/personal/jw/... > > (a couple of resources)- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
