quick note: you guys aren't playing by the RULES! "shared values of terms", not "personal views", or
"subjective definitions" that are not agreed upon, therefore not shared, AND, as well, not "provided",
BUT EVERYTHING PROVIDED MUST BE AGREED UPON BEFORE WE CAN PROCEED!. (tip: we are defining "subjective", and henceforth, Reality) I KNOW its tough to follow, unless you follow the rules! I never said it was going to be easy, just fun!
This may require all of your effort and much of your time, and patience, as it has The Esmer, to play fair. THE ESMER IS TRYING AS HARD AS YOU ARE TO PROVE HIMSELF WRONG! (maybe he already has....
)
Common ground is neccessary to walk together. What is the use of fighting and arguing on our journey? Why not arrive at our destination in agreement, that we may all agree on what we describe our destination to be, to see the plain truth together as one, or
ALL?
danlo
Avatar wrote: I think we should start from scratch maybe.
by all means.....
Avatar wrote:...We're talking at cross-purposes, because we don't have a shared value for any given term.
What then, makes something subjective?
--A
The description of the interpretation of perception makes something "subjective". PERIOD.
(Interpretation of perception also qualifies, because interpretation is the perceptor describing its reality to itself: the perceiver: awareness: the "subject" (perceiver) being "subjective" (describing).
Avatar wrote:
So everything that can "percieve" is "aware"? Sure about that? What causes phototropism, if not the plants perception of the sun? Is the plant "aware"?
Absotively! the
definition of "
percieve" is "to "
be aware".
The presence of perception demands the presence of awareness.
What ARE you? I AM plant
What DO you DO? I percieve.
WHAT do you perceive? The sun.
I DO DESCRIBE
Avatar wrote:And is "awareness" enough to allow you to describe your interpretation?
IRREDUCIBLE RESIDUE
The Esmer wrote:
In order to be perceived, Reality must first provide a perceiver.
In order to perceive, you must first have awareness.
Reality must first provide awareness.
Reality must then provide awareness with perception.
Perception is the act of awareness
Awareness IS, Perception DOES
In order to DO, you need WILL, or Intent
So Reality must now provide awareness with the will to perceive.
But awareness did not have the ability to interpret what it perceived,
Only the will to perceive.
Therefore "Reality" must provide awareness with the will to not only perceive,
But the will to interpret, or describe, what it was perceiving, to itself,
That it might name it "Reality", its description,
or interpretation, of all that it was capable of perceiving with its awareness.
Everything Reality needed to provide for it being perceived,
and described (named), by the perceiver, had to be provided by Reality itself
And Everything the Perceiver needed to describe Reality to himself,
Was provided by Reality itself, to describe itself.
Furls Fire
IF IT IS NEEDED, IT MUST BE PROVIDED!
Can you deny that this is an accurate and valid description of each one of you, yourselves, right now? As far as the process, and required components, a "description", and not an explanation? YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN, ONLY DESCRIBE, FOR TO EXPLAIN (DEFINE) REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE (SHARED VALUE), OF INTENT
To define yourself, and therefore your description,
you must reduce yourself to your last verifiable component.
Since you cannot start at the top of yourself, because you perceive that you are unknown to yourself in your totality,
you must start at the bottom, or with the first verifiable component of your perceivable awareness.
danlo
Avatar wrote:
Do we perceive the unknown? Or the unknowable? If reality is a description of our perceptions, how do we perceive those things which we cannot describe? Or is it the other way around?
.
I'm so very sorry I have to do this to you in front of everyone, Avatar, but you leave me no choice.
We already have a "shared value", or "definition", or "description" for the unknown, and unknowables.
unknown = valid
unknowable = valid
(gotcha!
) (did you notice that "
unknown" was
much more "
definitive" than "
unknowable"?
)
Avatar wrote:
If we return to your original hypothesis, that "Reality" is nothing more than our description of our interpretations of what we percieve, it sounds a lot like you're agreeing with my basic standpoint, essentially, that Reality itself is subjective.
We
must agree upon the
definition of Reality before we can
agree it's
true,
therefore we must
first "describe" our "
interpretation" of Reality with "
shared values", or "
definitions" in order to "
agree".
And if we return to your original
question, not
standpoint:
Avatar wrote:...We're talking at cross-purposes, because we don't have a shared value for any given term.
What then, makes something subjective?
--A
we THEN must "
agree" what "
subjective" means, using "
shared values",
by "
defining" it, hence, the
RULES, which are
LOGIC, and
MUST be
VALIDATED.
Avatar wrote:If no perception is invalid by virtue of its truth to any given awareness, then is it not equally true to say that "Reality" cannot be fixed and immutable, by virtue of having to contain every perception (truth)?
Which in turn suggests, to me at least, that "Reality" is what the perceiver perceives.
you are
indeed defining, or describing, "subjectivity", and that indeed,
Reality is what the perceiver perceives, but in order for
everyone to "agree",
and therefore
validate the statement (or
description of interpretation) that "
Reality is subjective",
we have be "non-subjective", or have "
shared values", or "
descriptions of interpretations".
And am I to assume that you agree with the hypothesis that Reality IS a "description of an interpretation of a perception of awareness", or what the "perceiver perceives"
What ARE you? I AM plant = perceiver
What DO you DO? I percieve. = "act of awareness"
WHAT DO you perceive? The sun. = Reality, based on the "shared value" of
phototropism
(the
totality of the plant remains
unknown, but you share a "
perspective" based on your agreement of a description of a component of the plants Reality, which you INTERPRETED using LOGIC with your PERCEPTION.)
Avatar wrote:
"Reality" cannot be fixed and immutable, by virtue of having to contain every perception (truth)?"
The Esmer wrote:
"Reality" cannot be fixed and immutable, by virtue of having to contain ALL Things (perceptions)?"
The fixed and immutable fact of Reality is that nothing perceivable is fixed and immutable, but constantly changing thru time.
(Suspense!!!! We still have yet to get to my "INTENTION", to describe, or define, PARADOX!!! the topic of this thread? THIS is where we HAVE to start, and we HAVE to follow LOGIC to the END! if we are to agree what PARADOX means, THE question!Didn't think I was stealin it did ya? haha! Stay Tuned!)
We require comment/challenges to continue.......or else The Esmer will just play by himself, I guess......Am I playing too rough? Have I run off the tracks? Do we need to regroup, and gather where we are, and try to figure out where we want to go? (I knew this would happen.....
)