 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Your power to dictate my perceptions to me, as if you perceive for me, is perceived by me as being demonstrably false, but my guess is that there is no way in which I can demonstrate how false your power to dictate my perceptions to me are, in fact, as can be demonstrated over time, as you continue to dictate my perceptions to me, despite any effort on my part to demonstrate precisely how false your dictations of my perceptions are in fact.
I think some of that was directed at me. I like the fact that you get all hot and bothered about it (or so it seems) - that would mean that there is doubt.
That is a case in point.
How many times can I confess that there is doubt, always doubt, and yet for some strange reason you continue to dictate my perceptions to me as if there is no doubt?
A million confessions won't be enough?
Despite all doubt, however, each attempt to disprove perception results in proof of perception, and how many times will be sufficient, without ever a negative result, to prove the case that perception exists?
I see no point in asking for your absurd version of my perceptions, since each time you absurdly claim to know that there is no proof, when each time I perceive, that is proof positive.
Why would I ask for more of your false dictatorial statements concerning my perceptions, when so far you prove that your version of my perceptions are false?
I don't, because your versions of my perceptions prove to be false, so there is no point in me asking for more false versions of my perceptions, unless you can come up with one, one that isn't demonstrably false to me.
Things are not as black and white as perception or no perception.
I perceive that sentence as a dictatorial statement of some nebulous fact being reported by someone propping themselves up as a false authority over what someone else may perceive, and in particular there is someone else I have in mind, which is this perception that exists in the form of me.
I don't have any use for that dictatorial message written by that false authority concerning what I perceive, but I suppose that other people exist, or that other perceptions exist, whereby that sentence has some use for them.
I know that perception does exist. I do not know if perception does not exist. I call one of my perceptions Black, when I see Black, I use the word Black, if my intention is to communicate what I see, when I see Black; same goes for White.
Logic is relative and is doesn't judge.
Logic, according to the authority on logic, does this, and does that, I suppose; however someone who can't even deduce the fact that perception exists, as far as my perception goes, is in no position to dictate to me what is or is not logical, or what is or is not an accurate judgement.
Within some parameters certain things are logical.
Someone incapable of perceiving that perception exists, again, and again as far as my perception goes, is in no competitive position to dictate to me anything about logic, or the supposed parameters that supposedly contain this nebulous logic stuff.
With broader perspective - more things are logical, including some that disprove prior ones, even though those were logical in their extent.
Someone incapable of proving that perception exists, as far as I can logically deduce, is in no position to broaden perspective, since perception isn't even proven. Failing to even arrive at a perception that perception exists, as far as my perception goes, can't broaden what does not even exist, as far as they are concerned, if I could understand such a limited perspective, but I can't, and so why bother with any further limitations from a perspective that proves to be false concerning what I can prove to myself to be true every time I endeavor to prove or disprove it, perception to me, if not to anyone else, proves itself to be a fact.
Again, someone claiming to have authority over my power to prove to myself that perception exists for me, as they claim otherwise, is in no position to dictate to me the facts about anything else in any case where my perspective is not in agreement with their perspective.
It is unreasonable for me to perceive that my perception is not proof of my perception as one of my perceptions (you) claims that is it is true that perception is not proof of perception, an obvious false perception, from an obviously false source, so of what calculation can that measurably false source be in any way trusted to be the source of any supposed fact of any kind whatsoever? I am to trust your perception over my own when yours proves to be false on the simplest thing, the only thing that proves to be true every time?
I see little room for reason in that case.
You probably have a hard time imagining the kind of process that wouldn't classify as perception.
What I perceive is perception and you can't even acknowledge my perception of perception, which is obvious enough to me, and yet failing to even acknowledge that I do perceive, you go on to suggest that you have some vague perception of what I can or cannon perceive?
If you cared to know what I perceive or what I don't perceive, you could find out, but failing to even acknowledge the fact that I do perceive, to me, in my power of perception, creates no authority on your part to actually know what I perceive or what I do not perceive, since you can't even get the most basic thing I do see understood, as far as your words suggest to me.
I do like challenges.
One of many processes that would not classify as a perception to me is imagination.
Whatever you do is what you do, and my trust in your ability to know what I perceive is rapidly declining to zero, since you apparently place my perceptions at that zero point.
Yet your lack of imagination doesn't disprove it automatically.
Someone who claims that perception is no proof of perception dictates to me with nebulous authority about proof of other things?
This someone who claims to be the authority over my perception of one thing that can be proven is dictating to me his negative measure of my imagination?
Do you expect me to perceive any reasonable significance concerning your measure of my imagination, and if you did not then why did you write such a sentence?
And since there is no knowledge of said process except awareness of it's existence possibility - there is yet no way to account for it or it's effect on the whole picture either.
The perception that perception exists, in my measure, is a measure of knowledge, and from this perception of this fact, that perception exists, I, if not you, can move onto further discoveries of knowledge, such as:
Do not look directly at the sun.
Where you are, considering your false authority over my perception, the negative measure of my imagination according to you, or what is or is not logic, or what is or is not knowledge, is lacking authority in my measure, since it is measurably obvious that your perception of my power to know that perception exits is demonstrably false.
I know that perception exists. Your false claims to the contrary are within my perception as being demonstrably false claims.
If you would say that your notion is an absolute truth WITHIN such a system and NOT COMPLETELY ABSOLUTE - it would be fine with me.
On what basis of perception, on what measure of any kind, am I to agree to have you dictate to me what I perceive to be true, demonstrably true to me, or not in any case?
If I perceive, then I perceive, and if you can't even acknowledge that fact, than of what use, what basis of perception, am I to agree to giving you the power to dictate to me what I will or will not perceive?
You are now setting up parameters of reality for me to agree to perceive despite the fact that you already reject, negate, the one thing I can confidently prove to be a fact to my own sense of accurate perception?
That makes no sense to me. I can trust my own "crocked eye" as Solzhenitsyn wrote, to some extent, to the extent I report to you, in fact, to the limit that I know, to the limit that proves to be true each time so far, that perception exists, and I can't trust myself any further than that, and yet you are claiming to have some reason in which I can trust your perception, yet you negate my one definite step toward knowledge?
You define for me the meaning of absurdity.
Because that would mean that you have come in terms with unknown.
You can't even recognized, acknowledge, understand, or reason out, the fact that I perceive, and yet you prop yourself up as an authority over the things I perceive?
What, may I ask, is the source of your authority over my perception, the same perception that you can't even recognized as existing?
Should I trust that you can provide me with an accurate answer, according to you, or is the answer self-evident in this case?
Your authority comes from you because you say so?
Because that would mean that you have come in terms with unknown. Yet you refuse to do so, setting rules to have yourself victorious by definition.
Your pretense of authority over my perception continues into greater detail, and at this point my trust in your power to accurately perceive what my perceptions are: are reaching into the negative where I begin to suspect that you are willfully distorting the observable facts for some reason, and at this point there is no reason for me to ask for the reasons, since distrust of motive, or beginnings of a trust that you are falsifying willfully, is unreasonable in the context of productive discussion. I see what I see.
Whatever game you are playing, where you are now claiming that I refuse to do something, and where now you are claiming that I set myself up as winning something, is abhorrent to me.
You are stepping into a false report of me that I do not like in the least, and here is your notice to cease misrepresenting me in this way.
The concept of discussion to me is a competition of finding a more accurate perception. If you twist that knowable perception of my own, and I know that is my perception, if you twist that around into me working to win something, by deceit, if you go that far, you will effectively end any cause for me to have anything more to do with you.
I know that I perceive. That knowledge I command is the one known fact that continues to prove to be a fact each time I test it, and if you cannot understand that then that is a point of disagreement between your perspective and my perspective, and this extra garbage you are now attaching to me is your invention, your fabrication, and your projection from you onto me, and that is demonstrable to me, because I know my perceptions intimately and you do not, so by what reason, by what accurate measure, do you have this authority over what I perceive or what I do not perceive?
Because that would mean that you have come in terms with unknown. Yet you refuse to do so, setting rules to have yourself victorious by definition.
If you continue to misrepresent me in this way you will be called on it, and if you step over into obvious, and accurately measurable, claims of me employing deceit to "win" some nebulous game, or whatever, then know the consequences of that willful act on your part.
"setting rules to have yourself victorious by definition"
If I perceive than I perceive, which is demonstrable as fact, to me; and to me that is not a case of me "setting rules," that is a case of me perceiving, and a case of me acknowledging that I perceive. That is what that is according to me. What I perceive, according to you, now, as I read, is that I am "setting rules to have" myself "victorious by definition", yet a rule is being set, by someone, whereby my perception is not proof of my perception.
Who is setting that rule?
Why is that rule being set?
The rule being set, obviously, and measurably, is that perception is not proof of perception. I set no such rule. I perceive. That is a fact.
I don't decide to set the rule that I perceive.
Someone set the rule that perception is not proof of perception, as far as I can perceive, and it is not me.
Things are as they are and whatever make-believe rules we would try to make - we would end only self-deluding ourselves. No one is insured against it. And that simple fact I think is the way to go about it.
Which things are what they are, and again by what measure am I to measure any answer from any source while I seek the accurate answer, certainly not from you, since you can't even prove the simplest thing, the easiest thing, or the only thing that can be proven?
Who is making rules? As far as I can perceive, you are making these rules that dictate to me what I perceive, and so far your rules misrepresent what I perceive, and if not you making the rules, then who, or from what source are these rules you perceive being constructed?
As far as your perspective goes, as far as I can perceive so far, your claim is that I am deluding myself, and you are in a position to let me know this fact?
What I am actually doing is perceiving, and by what measure, in your perception, am I deluding myself, if that is your claim?
You have the authority to speak to me about facts, when the perceptible perception of perception, according to you, is not a fact?
Again, to me, that is the definition of absurdity.
I hope I cleared the air a little bit.
If you step any closer toward constructing a false me, which you are doing, whereby you step over the line, if you may, and I'm not saying you will, I am merely offering you a warning concerning how I perceive such things, if you step over that line of misrepresenting me, and step into representing me as me being someone who is willfully deceptive (to win something), then I will have all the proof I need to trust that you are willfully deceptive, and at that point there will no longer be any reason for me to continue associating with you voluntarily. At that point, which I hope never arrives, you will make our association an involuntary one.
I am speaking about this:
Because that would mean that you have come in terms with unknown. Yet you refuse to do so, setting rules to have yourself victorious by definition.
That to me is too close to a misrepresentation of me along the lines of fabricating a person that is willfully deceptive and then attaching that false character to me.
I may be very wrong about how I see those two sentences, but that is how I see it.
I admire your firm stance, yet I have no right to share it for reasons explained above.
I do not ask for you to share my "firm stance" as you call it. I offer my perspective, which continues to be an obvious fact to me, despite any words you may write to the contrary. The mere fact that I perceive the words that you write prove, rather than contradict, the fact that I perceive.
This is your choice (obviously) to do things the way you do or change according to what other people say, or disregard what they say or whatever.
Within the parameters of "whatever" are my perceptions that include me not disregarding anything someone says, instead, when at a point of contention the words defining that point define that point, so words elaborating upon that point can be put aside until such time as that point is no longer a point of contention.
Example:
Perceptions is proof of perception.
Perception is not proof of perception.
If that is a point of contention, well defined, then by what reasoning can elaboration on that point of contention be inspired?
I know that perception is proof of perception if the word proof means anything, and if the word proof means nothing then there is no reason for the word to exist, and this is, again, merely elaboration, having no capacity, no power, to remove the point of contention, as far as I can tell, so what would be the point of further elaboration?
I don't blame you for stubbornness, if that's your way - that's your way.
Can I list all the negative perception you have so far reported to be the measure you have of me?
Why have I become such a poor example of a human being?
Maybe in fact your perception is superior to everyone else's.
Elaboration on the accurate measure of the meaning of the word "superior" may go along way toward my power to accurately perceive your perception in this case; otherwise your sentence does not have anything to do with me or my perceptions of the present point of contention.
Maybe you do account for anything and everything.
I perceive that sentence to be another case of meaninglessness to me, to my perceptions, and of no use or relevance to the present point of contention, as if you are speaking about someone unknown, and unknowable, to me, when you write the word "you" and use the word "you" in that sentence.
Or maybe I don't need to try and account for it. That is not our fault if you're far more evolved that us.
I have a lot of experience with the political tactic known as hyperbole.
I can see it when I see it.