We might perceive the concept of a material object in different ways but we still experience the impact of a 100 mph fast ball in the same way.
As to philosophical meaning, I wonder if sometimes philosophy doesn't hinder communication more than help. While we are busy analyzing our differing perspectives on matter the fast ball is busy splitting a skull. Not that I'm knocking philosophy. I think it's good to stop and ponder once in a while. But, there are times when analysis obscures reality more than it clarifies. On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:50 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > Chuck, thanks for your cogent responses. > > Indeed we do use the terms subjective and objective in entirely > different ways when it comes to philosophy. Or, perhaps you aren’t > meaning to be philosophical here? > > For me, ‘subjective’ does have to do with one’s personal experiences > and/or thoughts…feelings etc. Yet, when it comes to things ‘physical’, > (“a material object”), how we as humans perceive such things is based > upon our thinking …not on what they actually are. While we may > experience similar results from running into a wall, a wall is made up > of molecules, atoms and mostly just space. What we experience when > running into said hypothetical wall is not due to that which most > consider to be ‘matter’…unless one considers that the resistance we > experience is NOT from running into something…but, rather, running > into something that is apparently held together by forces and energy. > Actually, it is almost 100% space! > > In any case, to suggest that a ‘table’ exists if there is no human > being or mind to conceive of such a thing just misses the point. Since > it is a personal concept, it is subjective as I use the term. > > > On May 10, 11:17 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > By objective I generally mean anything that is a shared common > experience. > > For instance, gravity is a shared common experience. My list of people > who > > are not physically attracted to the Earth is very short. > > > > Your ability to breath is dependent upon your proximity to the ground due > to > > the fact that the Earth's atmosphere gets thinner the higher you go. > > > > Another shared common experience is kinetic energy. Most people who are > hit > > with a 100 mph fast ball react in a very similar manner - they drop to > the > > ground with a concussion. > > > > Here your health is dependent upon your ability to avoid 100 mph fast > balls. > > > > Matter is a shared common experience. Running into a brick wall at full > > speed generally has the same result for anybody who tries it. > > > > See above for dependencies. ;) > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:10 PM, ornamentalmind > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "All objective things are dependent in some way also. Just in a > > > different > > > way. .." - CB > > > > > Would you mind giving a list of at least a few things that you > > > consider to be objective? At the outset I have little doubt that we > > > are dealing with an issue of semantics; however we can continue to > > > discuss it, no? > > > My point is that *anything* that is dependent is by definition > > > subjective. > > > > > On May 4, 1:06 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > All objective things are dependent in some way also. Just in a > different > > > > way. > > > > > > I think subjective things are dependent in the way we associate them > with > > > > each other. Objective things are more physically dependent. > > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:46 PM, ornamentalmind > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > To me, what Chuck said about ‘dependence’ is of utmost importance > > > > > here. All subjective things are dependent. > > > > > > > On May 3, 9:30 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > PSK if at some point someones conciousness dident tell them not > to > > > be > > > > > > selfish then how is it possible that you were ever told not to be > > > > > > selfish ? > > > > > > > > pol.science kid wrote: > > > > > > > selfishness is contrary to collective consciousness true..but > isnt > > > > > > > that the most real thing about us..i wonder..i wasnt told that > > > > > > > selfishness is bad...would my conscience strike me...keep me in > > > > > > > check...because...sometimes...my thoughts...they shock and > repulse > > > > > > > me... i loathe myself for having such thoughts..and then i > > > > > > > wonder...if that is not me...but it is me...it is hard ...to > know > > > that > > > > > > > oyu are what you might condemn in someone else...and so i ask > > > > > > > often... > > > > > > > > > On May 3, 1:04 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > PSK selfishness arouses discontent because it is contrary to > > > > > > > > collective consciousness , try reading the meditations of > > > marcus > > > > > > > > auralius chapter 2 verse 1 from the harvard classics . > > > > > > > > > > gabbydott wrote: > > > > > > > > > From a top-down perspective this is correct. But I > understood > > > that > > > > > PSK asked > > > > > > > > > for individual responses from each of us. > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:09 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > But you have to admit there are humans who haven't the > chance > > > to > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > consider this type of thinking as their lives are > miserable > > > due > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > poverty, war, sickness and all other ills. Plus- what > does a > > > > > culture > > > > > > > > > > celebrate? Wealth? Power? Etc.? You can hardly fault some > for > > > > > buying a > > > > > > > > > > false self and image if that is what their culture > teaches > > > them, > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > you? It takes a brave rebel to contradict society or > > > challenge > > > > > group > > > > > > > > > > thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 2, 12:20 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If the selfish would truly search their self, they'd > > > quickly > > > > > die out. > > > > > > > > > > > Problem is how they don't see themselves but see > themselves > > > in > > > > > the others > > > > > > > > > > > with the poor others not knowing that they are not > taken > > > for > > > > > themselves > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > for someone else. My explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM, pol.science kid < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the first glance of your reply came a thought to > my > > > mind > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > collective consciousness...rather a question...does > the > > > > > collective > > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness exist independently...what does it mean > > > > > exactly...to put > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > crudely is it the realisation that you are not the > only > > > > > phenomena..but > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > i feel is....it is very difficult to transcend ones > own > > > > > person...but is > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > important....why do we really get irritated with self > > > > > absorbed or self > > > > > > > > > > > > seeking people....why do we condemn selfishness..in > any > > > > > sense...are we > > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > > insecure as to feel deprived because of that ...or is > it > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > more.. i > > > > > > > > > > > > hope i make sense.. and i hope you get waht i am > trying > > > to > > > > > ask...i > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > like all to answer...cos i really want to know.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:36 PM, DarkwaterBlight < > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This take appeals to my understanding. Perpetually > > > changing, > > > > > evolving > > > > > > > > > > > >> and reforming. Input has an outcome and causes an > > > expanded > > > > > "mind > > > > > > > > > > > >> space", if you will. Is logic all logical and what > is to > > > be > > > > > said about > > > > > > > > > > > >> rationalizing the "irrational"? Should my thinking > be > > > > > correct by the > > > > > > > > > > > >> standards of others or to my own? What of "raising > the > > > bar" > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > >> consciousness and of a paradigm shift to a more > correct > > > > > thinking of > > > > > > > > > > > >> our "collective mind" ? Of all that goes into into > > > thought > > > > > and mind is > > > > > > > > > > > >> this not the desired effect? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Apr 30, 9:23 am, "pol.science kid" < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > might thought be colored by the mind that engages > it > > > > > ....what is the > > > > > > > > > > > >> realm > > > > > > > > > > > >> > of pure thought that you mention here .... is it > logic > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > >> > rationalisation...do you mean the method of > employing > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > >> thought...because > > > > > > > > > > > >> > ....knowing...percieving something for the first > time > > > the > > > > > mind will > > > > > > > > > > > >> > automatically fall back on the things it thinks it > > > does > > > > > know.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Chad Moore < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Knowledge unites, in being or in identity. > Thinking > > > > > separates, in > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > subject-object relationship. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Knowing has no place in the ordinary thought > > > process. > > > > > Thinking > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > something > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > which has to be known is wrong, since it moves > in a > > > > > vicious > > > > > > > > > > circle. > > > > > > > > > > > >> You > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > cannot think > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > of anything you have not known. Such thinking > can > > > never > > > > > take you > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Truth. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > But when you direct your thought to something > (say > > > > > yourself) which > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > >> have > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > otherwise > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > visualized, the thought loses its own > > > characteristics > > > > > and limits, > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > stands > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > revealed as that Self (Consciousness) itself. > > > Thought is > > > > > thus > > > > > > > > > > reduced > > > > > > > > > > > >> into > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > its essence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > -- > > > > > > > > > > > >> > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - >
