Lenglain;
just had to ask; exactly which of your senses brought you to that conclusion?
Who amongst us has any sense, anyway?
c.i.
reality
BoGOWo, excellent question. Lenglain, your statement is obviously not based on sense data; it is an intellectual/metaphysical conclusion much like that of Kant, with his division of the world into Phenomena (that which we experience/sense)--the appearance of reality, and Noumena (the reality behind appearance, the "thing in itself" which cannot be seen as such, because it would then become phenomena). I pretty much accept my experience as an end in itself. It IS my reality.
I say that reality is more than meer sensations. Sensations infer a place beyond sense from where illusions come from. Perhaps in the cave... for a shadow their must be flame, of course? This "location" is simply the logical place which houses what is not coporeal or sensational, rather what is not real and cannot be felt: ideas. I agree with nobody... ideas must exist with or without symbolic representation.
My primary assumption is based also on The Meditations... Everyone who has not yet read it: go out and read it. Then you will understand almost half of what I say... I think...
It's impossible to tell if anyone understands.
Sorry I havn't been on in a while... there has been a lot of stuff in my life...
Once again,
Second Socrates
Question: what is reality?
The reality is that we do not know the answer
so much has been talked about this question. since Socrates, discourse in search of the "ultimate" reality has loaded our book shelves and subjected themselves to the test of time. probably, as Hegel says, all theories are partly right and partly wrong, such that the synthesis of the two will be more correct. yes, most important of all is that he predicted, in the fashion of historicism, that the synthesis combining thesis and antithesis, which he called "dialectic process", would lead mankind to be gradually conscious of itself--which, if Hegel is right about this, is then where reality lies.
but without many forcible reasons, i tend to believe mankind is never and ever imparted the capacity to know the reality. in other words, we can know nothing, which is an agnostic point of view. as Descartes described, we are not so sure about whether we live in the reality as
we know whether we live in somebody else' dream.
Reality is always -- always -- what I say it is. If you're uncertain about your, feel free to consult me, and I will tell you how your reality appears to me...
reality
Acepoly, I understand and essentially agree with your agnosticism; we cannot know ultimately reality intellectually. But we must remember that WE designed the question, "What is Reality?" It would seem to me that if we can fashion the question we must have SOME idea of what kind of an answer would satisfy us. After all the question was not given to us by some omnipotent and omniscient interrogator. It's OUR creation, our game. My guess is that, among the many possible solution, one would be to throw away the question. A zen monk sitting and just watching whatever is before his conscious, without thinking about it, is not likely to be troubled by some notion of reality, truth, the good, etc. etc.
Hi JLNobody,
As others have said what is IS, yet it's not even that.
The word duck isn't the duck.
The thought of the duck isn't the duck.
The word duck isn't a thought.
The duck isn't a thought.
A thought isn't a thought, it's just a name we call this symbol.
A symbol isn't a symbol it's just a name we assign to this percept.
A percept isn't a percept
A name isn't a name.
We're trapped inside something we call language, but language isn't language, it's just an object of awareness. But an object isn't an object, and awareness isn't awareness. And who is there to be trapped?
What is isn't IS, and the zen monk doesn't sit there is a state of isness. The monk sits there apart from symbolic thought, yet not apart.
reality
Twyvel, THERE you are. Or are you? You and there. Whatever.
:wink:
Now for the ultimate "reality":
what is a "question"?
what is an "answer"?
and.............
what is the "answer" to the "question"?
courtesy of Twyvel (paraphrased of course).
Probably Kierkegaard could answer this question better. If you said you were not sure of the reality, he would pierce you with a needle. When you cried out and cussed Kierkegaard, he would say you felt the reality just moment ago!!
Yes, and the pain of the needle and the one who felt it are not two.
Actually twyv.., you are correct, but for the wrong reason;
The pain does not belong to the needle, it belongs to the "recipient"!
But, I suggest that the subject of the needles"pointedness" probably has developed a very "real" respect for that faculty of the needle.
Yes BoGoWo the pain belongs to the recipient. And the recipient and the pain are one and the same. There is no 'you' apart from the pain.
Do we have respect or contempt for that which can and does cause us potential pain? Respect prior, contempt after?
Perhap it depends on whether or not one survives the pain.
Does one "own" the pain that removes one from participation on this planet?
Good one JLNobody.
And remember, if you see your reflection in the mirror it belongs to the mirror.
Anecdote:
One of my cats spends a fair bit of her time scratching at a mirror that I have beside my front door; she evidently thinks she should be able to go through into the "alternate" world on the other side; I should have called her "Alice"!
Now, I wonder, does she "own" the reality on the other side of the mirror, or does the mirror "own" her?
cat
BoGoWo, I think the answer is YES, just like my property "owns" me.
Yes, Twyvel, nobody gave this response. :wink:
