Bwahahahah ooh dear cheers Molly. 'Wrestle the greased dragon'. Now what a picture that has just put into my tiny little head!
On 16 Sep, 13:06, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
