 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I'm going to unload some here as to what is or is not true.
No one has yet been able to challenge the one perceptive truth that remains a perceptive truth and yet those who claim to do so have the audacity to transfer their error upon other people, as if other people are in some way responsible for the error instead of the individual making the false claim.
I am right, they say, you are wrong, they say, as if their words and their viewpoints become true because they say so, as if by their statements the fact that I perceive vanishes, and is no longer true, when in fact, no such event occurs, and therefore their dictatorial statements of falsehood are proven as such in fact.
Even if, by some unbelievable, immeasurable, imperceptible power the perception of other people by me, is nothing more than a perception by me, me being the perception that does exist, the claim remains demonstrably false, even if perception itself produces the demonstrably false statement.
Perception exists, not the words perception, not the perception of perception, but the fact of perception exists, and no matter how many perceptions appear to suggest that perception does not exist, the fact that perception still exists proves that those perceptions refuting the existence of perception are false.
The word false is a perception, or it is imperceptible, and therefore not a perception. If the word false is a perception then what is the measure of the perception, the word, the symbols arranged in that order, and what is the meaning of that perception if it is a perception?
False is a perception?
No?
The people who say no, write the word no, say no, negate, put down, destroy, remove, set aside, win, overpower, gain control, take, insist, render powerless, my statement of demonstrable fact have the audacity to tell me that my perception is false, and the basis of their claim is that they are right?
How absurd can such a competitive exchange of perspectives become if on the onset there is a baseless negation of one perspective by another perspective?
Perspective is.
So another perspective claims that the perspective reporting the fact of being is shot down, destroyed, removed from observable reality, and the basis of this negation, this destruction, is a superior perspective?
Who do you think you are fooling?
I think you may want to look in the mirror.