stop, you're both right, Certs is two mints in one.

I would, rather say, that human recognition allows the manifestation
of the underlying reality (experience.)  Subject/object manifests in
degrees according to the state or stage of consciousness - the process
is creative and dynamic.  So, when we skip around and give good
examples of various states and stages we wrestle the greased dragon.

On Sep 16, 7:46 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16 Sep, 08:01, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > “Clearly that is your individual perception….” – SD
>
> > True, and in fact I remain amazed. And, rather than answer your
> > question directly, I will start at the beginning and address your
> > original statement. ("...Individual perception does not change
> > fact..." – SD)
>
> > I could ask you a question about it like, what is a ‘fact’? Yet, here
> > I will posit that any ‘fact’ that you present is based on your
> > individual perception. Yes, even the one about the sun. Without the
> > human perception of light, heat, spheres, fire, color, the cosmos
> > etc., in other words what a sun is as well as how it appears to arise,
> > cross the heavens and then hide beneath the earth, or, the concept of
> > the earth rotating allowing the above appearances to occur, there
> > would be no fact at all. Or, perhaps you would/could produce a fully
> > objective being who could confirm one of the stories about light? Or
> > better yet some sort of machine to measure such things, of course said
> > machine could not be made by a human being nor be interpreted/read by
> > a human being.
>
> > And, yes, I know about some of the ‘rebuttals’ such as “If you don’t
> > believe in the external world, why don’t you walk through walls?” or
> > other such strange forms of ‘logic’.
>
> > So, your assumption that anything is a ‘fact’ separate from human
> > thought is the flaw…so any question beyond that such as your last one
> > is based on an error.
>
>    If a fact is linked to human (or, indeed, any) acknowledgement
> (outside of the One), would mean that the entire history of the Earth
> could well have just 'popped into' existence by the creation of the
> first man.  Somehow, I rather think that dinosaurs and the like that,
> are now, little more than oil slicks underground, existed in their own
> time without human perception OF them.  Nor did our discovery of their
> oil slicks and/or bones and fossils, place them into history.  To
> think that human perception of data is what makes data 'real' (rather
> than acknowledged) is absurd.  But, of course, that's 'just my
> opinion'.  I blame German philosophers for most of that kind of
> thinking and, to me, it's the height of human arrogance to think that
> our conception/perception of anything is a required function of any
> OTHER thing's existence.  It reduces the Big Bang to the moment that
> the first human 'discovered' the background radiation FROM it, rather
> than the timing of the actual event.  I'm afraid I'm in Slip's camp on
> this.  Reality does not depend on human recognition of it in ANY way,
> rather, human recognition of anything is dependent upon the
> conformation of the underlying reality.
>
> > On Sep 15, 6:21 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Clearly that is your individual perception.
>
> > > Perhaps you can demonstrate how a "fact" is changed by individual
> > > perception/subjectivity.
>
> > > On Sep 15, 8:12 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > "...Individual perception does not change fact..." - SD
>
> > > > I find this an amazing declaration Slip!
>
> > > > On Sep 15, 3:15 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Haha! Yes Fran, but it is understood that the sun rises up from the
> > > > > horizon from the human visual perspective, that is why we call it
> > > > > "sunrise" and later in the day "sunset".
> > > > > Secondly this is not debating expressions of sunrise or earth rotation
> > > > > but about fact being distorted by subjectivity.
> > > > > I can easily make my point using an example other than sunrise.
> > > > > Individual perception does not change fact.  Whatever fact you prefer
> > > > > to use is your choice.
>
> > > > > On Sep 15, 2:32 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 15 Sep., 21:11, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The FACT is, Lee, that the sun rises.  That IS the fact.  
>
> > > > > > Ah, but is it, Slip? The fact is also that the sun does,not rise but
> > > > > > rather that the earth turns. At least since Copernicus.
>
> > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to