Definition of Reality

... but then, what is perception based on? ...



... could it possibly be that the answer to the question "What does it mean to be?" is simply "To be real." ... because it seems to me that on the lower rungs of the ladder of being, there is little difference between being and reality ... for example, to be a rock is to be real without any of the complications (e.g., perception, illusion, etc.) that come with living being ...

... are you saying it isn't a possibility? ...

Precisely my point, Being is reality is existence is perception is being. We tend to separate all of these concepts, yet I find it reasonable to understand them as different descriptions of the same concept.

... if being and perception are the same concept, does that mean a rock perceives? ...

... if being and perception are the same concept, does that mean a rock perceives? ...

Have you any reason for supposing it is true?

I rock is perceived as it is. What it is, is how it appears, i.e. how its perceived.

Because the meaning is the same does not entail that the words are interchangeable. Both words are necessary to display different faces of the same meaning. Don't turn them into predicates, as being is the bridge between subjects and predicates.

If "X" and "Y" are synonymous words, then then are intersubstitutable. That is the test of synonymy.

My point is that meanings have different tense. You can't take everything so literally, be a little bit more creative.

Would it be appropriate to say that: Dogs is animals? No, but "is" and "are" both represent being.

You mean that I should not understand that you mean what you write? It would be ungrammatical to say. "Dogs is animals". (What does it mean to say that meanings have "different tense"? I cannot even take that figuratively).

What are planets other than concepts? You have never seen the whole of a planet, only pictures of one. If it weren't for scientists, you wouldn't even have enough understanding of planets to claim they exist.

Words don't intrinsically possess meaning. We use words to describe our experience of meaning to others. I mean exactly what I write, if you fail to understand what I mean then I am either not expressing my thought clearly or you don't have enough background information to understand what I mean.

Don't assume because you don't understand something it's wrong, it simply means you don't understand it.

Most people try to understand something in which they don't understand, but you seem quite content to brush it under the rug as if it's merely dust in the wind.

Because the meaning is the same does not entail that the words are interchangeable. Both words are necessary to display different faces of the same meaning. Don't turn them into predicates, as being is the bridge between subjects and predicates.

I've never walked on a concept. I have walked on things like dirt, carpets, and roads. I didn't build my house on a concept. I built it on a foundation. Which was built on compacted dirt. Which is part of the Earth. Which, of course, is a planet.

And I have seen planets. Last summer while in the mountains I looked through a telescope and saw Saturn, rings and all. Unless there is cloud cover, I can look at the sky every night (and often do) and see lots of stars. Not just concepts of stars, but actual stars. They've been there a long time. Will they still be there after I am no longer there to perceive them? I'm sure they will, but so what? What do I care what goes on after I'm gone?

Words don't intrinsically possess meaning. We use words to describe our experience of meaning to others. I mean exactly what I write, if you fail to understand what I mean then I am either not expressing my thought clearly or you don't have enough background information to understand what I mean.

Don't assume because you don't understand something it's wrong, it simply means you don't understand it.

... but if being and perception are different facets of a larger concept, then it can be misleading to say that "Being is reality is existence is perception is being" ... only by providing the context that they are individual facets, can the statement be interpreted other than equivalence - in this case, I interpret it as "being is connected to reality is connected to existence is connected to perception folds back upon being" ... that is, it is the circular relation of the facets that is the larger concept ... but how does that relate to rock being versus human being? - that is, aren't all self-sustaining circular relations instances of life? ...

I didn't say they are different facets of a larger concept, I am saying they are the concept. There is nothing larger than being or perception or existence. They are all necessary and unconditional.

I don't think that if I don't understand something it is wrong. Why would you think that? But something does have to be meaningful for it to be wrong. Words do intrinsically possess meaning, since if it does not have meaning, it is not a word. But words do not intrinsically have some particular meaning may be what you are trying to say. And that is so. English term, "pain", and the French word, "pain" do not have the same meaning (although they both have meaning). Words have meaning because speakers of the language use them in a particular way, and that is the meaning they have. But all words have some meaning, and some particular meaning too.

You may mean exactly what you write (although I doubt it, since people often write ambiguously and vaguely) but, since you say that you write figurtively, and not literally, I may not understand what exactly you are writing.

I don't think that if I don't understand something it is wrong. Why would you think that? But something does have to be meaningful for it to be wrong. Words do intrinsically possess meaning, since if it does not have meaning, it is not a word. But words do not intrinsically have some particular meaning may be what you are trying to say. And that is so. English term, "pain", and the French word, "pain" do not have the same meaning (although they both have meaning). Words have meaning because speakers of the language use them in a particular way, and that is the meaning they have. But all words have some meaning, and some particular meaning too.

You may mean exactly what you write (although I doubt it, since people often write ambiguously and vaguely) but, since you say that you write figurtively, and not literally, I may not understand what exactly you are writing.

Oh, but he does understand it quite well...he just wants to get to the bottom of it, witch is fair and even necessary...the way he does it is the matter...he is a bit "dry", and lacks patience...