Reality - thing or phenomenon?

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
…. and leave it at that or at least don't say you will repeat yourself a thousand times if you need to... in order to 'convert' others because... 'you know'... you're correct... it's plain silliness.

Quote where I said that! (Hey, don’t bother looking for it, because I never said it. You just made that up, because you are getting frustrated.)
Doing that, igm...is plain silliness on your part.

This reply by you is what I'm referring to:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

Seriously, how many time may one repeat a tautology before it starts to become a tiny bit tiresome? 1000 times? 2000 times?

I do not know. But if the person to whom it is being addressed simply does not get it...I guess the number can be great.

Well, if you think

Quote:

…. and leave it at that or at least don't say you will repeat yourself a thousand times if you need to... in order to 'convert' others because... 'you know'... you're correct... it's plain silliness.

...is the equivalent of...

Quote:

...don't say you will repeat yourself a thousand times if you need to... in order to 'convert' others because... 'you know'... you're correct... it's plain silliness.

...there is not much I can do to help you.

I try not to engage in hyperbole...which "a thousand times" requires...and I never talk about "converting" anyone. So like I said...I NEVER SAID THAT.

It was something you just made up.

Right?

1 Reply

@igm,

As I've said earlier, Frank no longer knows when he contradicts himself.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Your agreeing with Oliver in that post... amounts to the same thing... and you know it... and you saying you will continue to repeat your tautology to those who do not agree with you, is a form of 'trying to convert' so no it wasn't what you said but... in the context of your reply to Oliver... that is what can be correctly inferred from it.

Reread my previous post with that in mind... if you feel you need to.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Your agreeing with Oliver in that post... amounts to the same thing... and you know it... and you saying you will continue to repeat your tautology to those who do not agree with you, is a form of 'trying to convert' so no it wasn't what you said but... in the context of your reply to Oliver... that is what can be correctly inferred from it.

Reread my previous post with that in mind... if you feel you need to.

It does not amount to the same thing...and quoting what I actually said rather than your distorted paraphrasing was inappropriate.

I you cannot see that it was...once again, I cannot help you. You have to work out those kinds of problems on your own.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I wonder why Frank has never lost and argument? I didn't wonder for long Laughing

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I was thinking what you said about

Quote:

There is also a fair dose of inertia and structural permanence in this world.

which agrees with my opinion about our genes and environment - that includes the language we use, and the politics under which we live.

I believe these examples are what makes up our reality.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

"Inertia" is the slowly moving stuff I was referring to, and "structural permanence" is essentially a cognitive pattern, one's idea about the organization of some "thing." True, they do provide much of our "reality"-- together with the more ephemeral faster moving stuff. But when we look carefully do we not realize that everything is in process at one rate of speed or another?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

I wonder why Frank has never lost and argument? I didn't wonder for long

I quote you when I comment on what you say. You really ought to stop the paraphrasing...and even more you ought to stop pretending that your paraphrasing of what I said...was what I actually said.

By the way...I have "lost" many arguments. I cannot imagine "losing" this one...and even have trouble thinking of it as a win/lose scenario. But if it does something for you...you are welcome to do so.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

igm wrote:
I'm saying it is completely impermanent.

Who in this world do you personally know that believes everything can be permanent? Name me one person, and I'll show you an idiot!

Doesn't Oliver use the word 'permanent' and assert that it is an actual state... often in his posts against impermanence?

cicerone imposter wrote:

I was thinking what you said about
Quote:
There is also a fair dose of inertia and structural permanence in this world.
which agrees with my opinion about our genes and environment - that includes the language we use, and the politics under which we live.

I believe these examples are what makes up our reality.

Nothing can be permanent for any length of time whatsoever because it wouldn't be able to change from being permanent into being impermanent and therefore the changes that take place within any object could not take place... and they obviously do as 'all' things change.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Getting back to the subject. As reality is not permanent it is constantly changing and therefore it does not remain long enough to be the same thing and it is therefore not able to be classified as objective as it doesn't last long enough in one state to be classified.

My guess is you will either not reply or reply with (excuse the paraphrase), 'igm I don't understand what in the hell you are talking about.'

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Getting back to the subject. As reality is not permanent it is constantly changing and therefore it does not remain long enough to be the same thing and it is therefore not able to be classified as objective as it doesn't last long enough in one state to be classified.

My guess is you will either not reply or reply with (excuse the paraphrase) 'igm I don't understand what in the hell you are talking about there'.

igm...reality is not permanent and is constantly changing and does not remain long enough to be the same thing...THEN THAT OBJECTIVELY IS WHAT IS.

Whatever REALITY ACTUALLY IS...that is what it IS. If it is constantly changing...objectively that is what it is.

It doesn't matter what REALITY IS...because whatever it IS...it IS.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

That's a contradiction.

I will reply for you:

No, it's not.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

That's a contradiction.

No...there is no contradiction there.

Quote:

I will reply for you:

No, it's not.

Ahhh...you realized your error.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

There is a contradiction but you can't see it. If you haven't read up on the counter arguments to your position then you can't be expected to see the subtle contradiction that you would see if you had of done that important reading.

Fresco, using other words of course, has said the same thing previously but you missed it that time as well.. it may have been to Oliver and not you.. so don't get defensive.

I realize that reality includes the fact that Frank will 'never' change his mind enough on this subject to see the contradiction (even though he is impermanent).

2 Replies

@igm,

Added one more sentence above.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

There is a contradiction but you can't see it. If you haven't read up on the counter arguments to your position then you can't be expected to see the subtle contradiction that you would see if you had of done that important reading.

There is no contradiction.

Quote:

Fresco, using other words of course has said the same thing previously but you missed it that time as well.. it may have been to Oliver and not you.. so don't get defensive.

I am doing my best to stay as non-defensive as possible. I am trying to be reasonable and courteous. (Not always easy...and I am not always successful.) I am treating this as a discussion between two entrenched, opposing positions.

Normally I am quick to jump to the "I do not know" default position, but in this instance, I will not. I am sure I am correct; I (sometimes) am disheartened that I cannot communicate it in a way that you can grasp; I will continue to give it my best efforts.

Quote:

I realize that reality includes the fact that Frank will 'never' change his mind enough on this subject to see the contradiction (even though he is impermanent).

I am going to assume you were not actually saying something important there, but were merely trying to dig at me...or hurl a gentle insult. If I am incorrect on that, just rephrase it and I'll attempt to respond.

1 Reply

@igm,

You're missing the whole point! "Permanence of structural changes" means it's in a constant flux; they can be slow or fast.

Don't you understand the use of words and combination of words?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Normally I am quick to jump to the "I do not know" default position, but in this instance, I will not. I am sure I am correct; I (sometimes) am disheartened that I cannot communicate it in a way that you can grasp; I will continue to give it my best efforts.

If I was the only one saying it and there wasn't an equally valid opposing argument or arguments made by many philosophers then I'd see why you'd be so sure you are correct but as that is not the case, if I was you I'd guess you 'might' be correct or might be incorrect.

But if you're so sure take the 'impermanence argument' for example and refute it. Now, if you did that I would be more convinced by your argument/sentence/tautology that must be objective/ stance.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're missing the whole point! "Permanence of structural changes" means it's in a constant flux; they can be slow or fast.

Don't you understand the use of words and combination of words?

Where in my post does it say 'structural changes' you've added the word 'changes'. I understand the words and combination of words that I was refering to 'not' the ones you have added that weren't in the original post.

It actually said:

cicerone imposter wrote:

I was thinking what you said about
Quote:
There is also a fair dose of inertia and structural permanence in this world.
which agrees with my opinion about our genes and environment - that includes the language we use, and the politics under which we live.

I believe these examples are what makes up our reality.

We all make mistakes... and so I'm not missing the point.. and could quote more posts that refer to 'permanence' not 'flux'. Flux is just another word for impermanence... one infinitely reducible moment of change followed by a constant flux of change with 'no' permanence' at all.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Normally I am quick to jump to the "I do not know" default position, but in this instance, I will not. I am sure I am correct; I (sometimes) am disheartened that I cannot communicate it in a way that you can grasp; I will continue to give it my best efforts.

If I was the only one saying it and there wasn't an equally valid opposing argument or arguments made by many philosophers then I'd see why you'd be so sure you are correct but as that is not the case, if I was you I'd guess you 'might' be correct or might be incorrect.

You are not me...so I will have to handle it the way I would handle it. I am probably more likely than anyone else in this forum to take the "this may be correct/it may be incorrect" position. That is part and parcel of the "I do not know" position I take regularly.

For you to suggest what you might do if you were me...and to suggest that you would be "more reasonable"...is an absurdity.

But I want to get away from that...because that kind of thinking goes nowhere.

Quote:

But if you're so sure take the 'impermanence argument' for example and refute it. Now, if you did that I would be more convinced by your argument/sentence/tautology that must be objective/ stance.

The "impermanence argument" resolves to variations on "nothing in REALITY is permanent" and "the structures of REALITY are always changing (whether quickly or slowly)."

So!

IF that is so...THEN THAT IS THE REALITY.

Can you change that?

Changing it would mean that you could cause REALITY to be static.

IF the REALITY is that all structures within REALITY are constantly in flux...there is no scenario that I can conceive of that would change that to "the structures within REALITY are static."

The reasson I cannot (WILL NOT) to to a "I do not know" default on this...is because REALITY cannot be anything other than what it IS...and whatever it IS...IS. That objectively is the situation.

I've said this over and over...and I am absolutely positive that I have it correct. As I've noted...I am not remotely shy to suggest that I do not know things that I do not know. (Some of you guys do find that difficult!)

0 Replies

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know