 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
I provided a metaphor and logic. Rest is up to you/your perception/whatever to follow or not. Many mommy-birds even chew food for their offsprings. But they do not swallow it for them, do they?
>>> If you say my words are equal to someone else, and since someone else refuted someone else, then by your reasoning my words are equal to what you call 'matter exists' axiom?
I provided a metaphor and logic. Rest is up to you/your perception/whatever to follow or not.
>>> When I type words such as perception exists I mean something specific, not something subject to interpretation by you or anyone else.
If it means something you are unable to convey or other person is unable to interpret - it is already questionable. I've explained in detail how I see your words about it and n even more detail about how it connects to my axiom. I haven't seen you addressing this connection even once. At least not the logic of it. And therefore I've yet to see how this 'perception exists' notion is different from how I speak about it in relation to my axiom.
>>> So I can ask for additional reports which I may, or may not, perceive, whereby anything other than perception does, in fact, exist, and how will I know of this existence of a report, if I do not perceive it?
I can ask. Can I know the answer without perceiving it?
Why asking whether you can ask if you're asking anyway? Thing is - perception itself doesn't exist without matter. If you managed to dig a trench around the consequence - that doesn't mean there is no connection to the actual cause of it. Just as in my example: in the first case logic is justified - consequence is seen as cause. Yet when you follow through on it - true cause is revealed (at least relatively). And there is that.
>>> Who said anything about a perception/not-perception duality?
I've said (as if you didn't see me doing it). Now obviously duality has to do with logic. Duality is an approach in which whole is described by distinguishing two aspects of the subject, which when intertwined describe the whole subject. Conception of perception lacks this duality - meaning there is no clear distinction between perception and everything else, more so having to do with the nature of everything else rather than perception on its own. I have to say - I really didn't expect that I would have to explain 'if - then' connections on this level quite so often.
>>> Always is a long time, so the word choice of always, to me, is unprovable to me, at this time.
We spoke a bit about the conception of time before I think. There I stated that time as people perceive it doesn't exist. Now maybe we didn't have this conversation but I'm pretty sure we did. Anyway, use of always is justified considering not only time, but the purpose of the statement itself. Perception and conception of perception are material let's say 'events'. They are included in overall understanding of matter. And being a consequence of that aspect of everything I see no logical for a flip here. But that is me. Maybe I know too much. Maybe I'm just fooling myself. As they say - 'time will tell'. I'd rather not to do death experiment just to be sure as quickly as possible.
>>> If perception says anything about matter, how would I know?
This is easy - simple misunderstanding on your part (or misconveying on mine). I meant: "If perception doesn't exist - then the fact that it doesn't exist says nothing about matter". Meaning that if perception doesn't exist - there is no logical indication what is the state of the matter at this point.
However, if matter doesn't exist - perception cannot exist.
Simple and easy cause-effect connection features.
>>> Failing to know what the reporter means by the word "logical" could contribute to failure of the reader of the report, that being me, to perceive the intended message intact.
The reporter feels awkward having to explain 'logical'. But oh, well... What is logic? Natural law of balancing describes the way matter and space interact. Regardless of where it all leads - everything happening at this level is logical. Universally logical if you prefer. That doesn't suggest that there aren't things that happen and are not logical. At the stage where matter is in some sort of disarray (after six-ray restructurization for instance) and there is no organism of being able to perceive - perception effectively doesn't exist. Everything is utterly logical at that point and at that level of interaction. At certain point logic starts being perceived and may suffer from conditions of those perceiving is. That of course is only bound by perception of these beings. When I say 'direct logical consequence' - I mean universal logic - logic of natural laws of the universe. Yet as always - whatever I say - I leave room for doubt. I could leave out the word logical. For this particular sentence it only served as adverb to increase noun 'consequence'. Must be a result of me being Russian. I expect too much out of you. Or think too much of myself.