15 Nov 07
Originally posted by KellyJayInteresting... you say you believe there is the reality we live in and what we think about it. Does that mean that "what we think about it" is separate from reality? But it's something you believe exists, so it must also be reality, yes?
As I bottom line this,
I believe there is the reality we live in and what we think about it.
Now my first impulse was to ask,
"What does everyone else think reality is?"
I now think that question is amusing, thoughts?
Kelly
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI would say—
As I bottom line this,
I believe there is the reality we live in and what we think about it.
Now my first impulse was to ask,
"What does everyone else think reality is?"
I now think that question is amusing, thoughts?
Kelly
(1) Reality is what it is, prior to our thinking about it.
(2) Our raw experience of reality prior to thinking, or concept-making, is what we then think about.
—The scientific methodology of observation, experiment, measurement; moving from observation to hypothesis to testing to theory, etc.; is no more than an extension of this.
(3) That raw experience—how we experience/perceive—is part of reality itself.
(4) The way our minds work and think is part of reality itself.
—That is, the grammar of our consciousness is part of, and derives from, the larger syntax of reality that we try to read. We are part of the reality we are attempting to observe.
(5) Our experience of reality (empiricism) and our ability to think about that (reason) are nevertheless all that we have, unless we simply want to make stuff up.
—Which is okay with me, aesthetically, as long as we know that’s what we’re doing and why.
(6) Our conclusions can at any time be defeated by empirical evidence or discovering that our reasoning has been faulty (e.g., that our premises are not true).
—This represents the principle of defeasibility in philosophy, and the principle of falsifiability in science.
—Any attempt to construct a model of the world that is not potentially defeasible by empiricism and reason, or in which defeasibility is not allowed, represents an attempt to escape reality.
—For example, I have some anecdotal evidence that some of my ancestors were Sephardic Jews. I choose to believe this. However, I could not honestly choose to continue to believe it if genetic testing showed that it simply wasn’t the case. I have not had such testing done (yet!), but I do not resist such testing because my belief might be proven wrong; it would have no bearing one way or the other on any aesthetic decision I might make to live as a Jew (e.g., to convert).
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by castlerookReality I don't believe requires my thoughts about it, it simply is.
Interesting... you say you believe there is the reality we live in [b]and what we think about it. Does that mean that "what we think about it" is separate from reality? But it's something you believe exists, so it must also be reality, yes?[/b]
I'm part of reality as I beleive everyone else here is too, and we can
both correctly and incorrectly have thoughts/beliefs about the reality
we are in. What are your thoughts about it all?
Kelly
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by KellyJayMy point was not whether reality requires our thoughts (I agree that reality would exist without our thinking about it), but rather that our thoughts themselves are a part of reality.
Reality I don't believe requires my thoughts about it, it simply is.
I'm part of reality as I beleive everyone else here is too, and we can
both correctly and incorrectly have thoughts/beliefs about the reality
we are in. What are your thoughts about it all?
Kelly
I agree very much with vistesd's post above.
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by castlerookYes I like almost everything he writes, his last here too.
My point was not whether reality requires our thoughts (I agree that reality would exist without our thinking about it), but rather that our thoughts themselves are a part of reality.
I agree very much with vistesd's post above.
Kelly
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by castlerookOut thoughts are part of reality, but do they/we grasp reality as it is
My point was not whether reality requires our thoughts (I agree that reality would exist without our thinking about it), but rather that our thoughts themselves are a part of reality.
I agree very much with vistesd's post above.
at all times? I believe someone here once told me about Plato
speaking about this in how we view things, I wish I could recall who
and exactly what the quote was.
Kelly
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by castlerookYes. My only thought—and this is a criticism of my own usage!—is that I hate that word “part”. We are so much of the whole. "Part" always implies to me a kind of separability that goes against my non-dualist grain. Nevertheless, I, too, have found that I end up using the word...
Not at all--in fact, I think it may be precisely because our thoughts are a part of reality that we fail to comprehend the whole of reality.
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by vistesdInteresting, and I appreciate the point.
Yes. My only thought—and this is a criticism of my own usage!—is that I hate that word “part”. We are so much of the whole. "Part" always implies to me a kind of separability that goes against my non-dualist grain. Nevertheless, I, too, have found that I end up using the word...
I was going to write that for me the word "part" does not connote separateness, but I suppose in a sense it does.
Now I'm trying to decide whether this is actually a bad thing.
Okay, first of all by "part of" I certainly do not mean to imply that our thoughts can exist without (apart from) the whole. They are a subset of, or a portion of, the whole. That said, I do think that one's thoughts, or to put it another way one's self is, well, a "self," which to me suggests at least a sufficient measure of cohesiveness so as to make it (at least sometimes) useful to examine it on its own terms.
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by vistesdI would've said that 'part' perfectly connotes connection since its opposite is 'a-part' and this clearly describes disconnection.
Yes. My only thought—and this is a criticism of my own usage!—is that I hate that word “part”. We are so much of the whole. "Part" always implies to me a kind of separability that goes against my non-dualist grain. Nevertheless, I, too, have found that I end up using the word...
16 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayReality is what it is.
As I bottom line this,
I believe there is the reality we live in and what we think about it.
Now my first impulse was to ask,
"What does everyone else think reality is?"
I now think that question is amusing, thoughts?
Kelly
Our ability to perceive and reason are pretty limited. It seems likely that our conceptualizations of reality are more than a bit off.
16 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by castlerookI do not see either as good or bad ( "a part", or "part of" ) unless there
Interesting, and I appreciate the point.
I was going to write that for me the word "part" does not connote separateness, but I suppose in a sense it does.
Now I'm trying to decide whether this is actually a bad thing.
Okay, first of all by "part of" I certainly do not mean to imply that our thoughts can exist without (apart from) the whole. hesiveness so as to make it (at least sometimes) useful to examine it on its own terms.
is something broken that shouldn't be, but "shouldn't be" implies a
lot of things too which brings us back to reality I guess.
🙂
Kelly
16 Nov 07
Originally posted by castlerookThat said, I do think that one's thoughts, or to put it another way one's self is, well, a "self," which to me suggests at least a sufficient measure of cohesiveness so as to make it (at least sometimes) useful to examine it on its own terms.
Interesting, and I appreciate the point.
I was going to write that for me the word "part" does not connote separateness, but I suppose in a sense it does.
Now I'm trying to decide whether this is actually a bad thing.
Okay, first of all by "part of" I certainly do not mean to imply that our thoughts can exist without (apart from) the whole. ...[text shortened]... hesiveness so as to make it (at least sometimes) useful to examine it on its own terms.
And the Zen question is: What do you use to examine the “self” on its own terms?
Note: I am inferring from your post that you are using the word “self” to refer to the thought/concept complex that defines the “I-construct.” As you say, absent some aberration (such as multiple personality disorder), it tends to be cohesive. The language becomes difficult here, since Buddhism and Vedanta don’t necessarily use the word that way (though I tend to), but use it as a verbal “tag” for something prior to that construct.