Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Anonymous

What is "real"?
    #2238636 - 01/13/04 08:30 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2238996 - 01/13/04 11:15 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStrumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2239013 - 01/13/04 11:25 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I thought you'd be aware that mankind doesn't know shit about this subject.


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2239017 - 01/13/04 11:32 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

What is the difference between entia rationis and entia reale?

It's all Greek (ah, Latin?) to me.


--------------------
No masters, no servants.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejpod
Stranger

Registered: 10/14/03
Posts: 107
Loc: DeeSee
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2239032 - 01/13/04 11:43 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

:laugh: One with absolute knowledge could surely enjoy a better grade of steak if said knowledge did not render 'better' absurd...

The rest of us will enjoy what we are told :wink:

Is knowable obtainable?  How does one know if they have seen too many Matrix movies?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: Strumpling]
    #2239044 - 01/13/04 11:49 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelucid
Jack's AlteredConsciousness

Registered: 03/29/03
Posts: 6,319
Loc: up on the bidet
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2239051 - 01/13/04 11:52 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Interesting that u bring this subject up man.
For the past year I've felt completely "UnReal"...
it's hard to describe exactly what I mean by this, but
it's as if I'm constantly in a dream.
Needless to say it's horribly disconcerting.
I somehow know that I didn't always feel this way
tho...
No ammount of logic or reasoning seems to affect the
way I "feel".
My rational mind has been thrown for a loop and I can't
seem to think my way outta this feeling...


--------------------
"no-mind un-thinks no-thought..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejpod
Stranger

Registered: 10/14/03
Posts: 107
Loc: DeeSee
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2239293 - 01/13/04 01:15 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

So many accidental phenomenologists on this site!?

Perhaps one can explain their view of schizophrenics? Is therapy even necessary? Why? What does therapy mean if all percepts co-exist?

I am both fascinated and baffled with my understanding of phenomenological views of reality and am glad this question was raised.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2239680 - 01/13/04 03:55 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

What is the difference between entia rationis and entia reale? And how does this correlate to the perceptible world versus the atomic world?

Does phenomenology come into play and can it give you a better grade of steak if you know this?

Discuss.




Things of reason and real things???

If a tree falls down in the middle of a forest...

I would say that nobody can be objective about entia reale because these things cannot be viewed without reason. I cannot step out of my mind for independent verification.

As for a better steak, what difference does it make? It's all the same.


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFrog
Warrior
Female User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 4,284
Loc: The Zero Point Field
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2240084 - 01/13/04 07:03 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Homework, huh?    :rolleyes:

Actually, I'm intrigued, but I'm still working.  I'd rather do "that" than "this" right now.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleYarry
Old Timer
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 23,762
Re: What is "real"? [Re: jpod]
    #2240090 - 01/13/04 07:08 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

jpod said:
:laugh: One with absolute knowledge could surely enjoy a better grade of steak if said knowledge did not render 'better' absurd...






what about if he knew there was better? maybe being a dumb fuck is better in tasting steak. Cuz if you dont know of the concept better, let alone think that there is a better steak, then thats the best steak you will EVER eat! just a thought! lol


--------------------
Grumpy Old Man.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: lucid]
    #2241019 - 01/14/04 07:03 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: jpod]
    #2241022 - 01/14/04 07:06 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2241030 - 01/14/04 07:11 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: Frog]
    #2241035 - 01/14/04 07:15 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2241498 - 01/14/04 12:05 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

What is the difference between entia rationis and entia reale?




Well, both reffer to the sphere of the possible.
Entia reale is what describes the real existence. Entia rationis is reffered as "fictions of mind", reality perceived through a pathological mean like hallucinations. I believe normal perception is always the perception of something that has existence in this reality. If we do not assert that the perceptual object also really exists as a perceptible thing, we cannot say that we are perceiving it.

Quote:

And how does this correlate to the perceptible world versus the atomic world?



The sphere of the real is defined as the sphere of existence that is totally independent of the human mind. The familiar distinction between appearance and reality calls our attention to the fact that there is sometimes a difference between the way things appear to us and way they really are - the character they have apart from our cognition of them.
I could relate this viewpoint to Kant or other idealist philosophers but i'll give you an example from "The Nature of the Physical World" by Sir Arthur Eddington. The table in front of him, he says, is solid and impenetrable to his hands that lean upon it. But he tells us that, from the physicist's point of view, it is nothing but a field of empty space, a void in which elementary particles are moving about with great speed.
How can the same table be both what it appears to be to our ordinary sense perception and what it really is according to the physicist's theory of it? The elementary particles exist really only when they exist in a cyclotron, not when they are organized as the constituents of all the physical things that are the objects of sense-perception. In the latter case, the elementary particles are only virtually present, and that virtual existence can be turned into actual existence only by destroying the physical thing in which they are virtually present.
Existence has three modalities. The first is real existence, existence independent of the human mind and unaffected by it. The second modality is subjective existence. The contents of the human mind, its sensations, perceptions, images, memories, and concepts, have existence in your mind and mine. Since you and I really exist, subjective existence is also one form of real existence. The third modality is neither totally independent of the human mind nor totally dependent on the individual mind. This third mode is the existence of all the objects of the human mind except perceptual objects. Other than perceptual objects, we must always ask whether they have real existence as well as objective existence, that is, existence as intended objects, the objects that the human mind intends or means.
Quote:

Does phenomenology come into play and can it give you a better grade of steak if you know this?



A better grade of steak ? Hmmm .... i don't know what you mean by that but phenomenology or the phenomenological reduction is just a reflection, at least i see it that way.
Because the mind can be directed toward nonexistent as well as real objects, phenomenological reflection does not presuppose that anything exists, but rather amounts to a "bracketing of existence," that is, setting aside the question of the real existence of the contemplated object. Therefore i think we can use phenomenology to determine the objective existence of an object, maybe a useful "tool" to be used in the third modality of existence.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire

Edited by MAIA (01/15/04 04:15 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: MAIA]
    #2241527 - 01/14/04 12:17 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2241856 - 01/14/04 02:05 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Mr_Mushrooms said:
I didn't read your response closely or think about it deeply but what I saw I agreed with.




Hehe, I followed it really close.. it was fucking great. My mind, it needs stimulation... I haven't read anything for ages. Time to get serious about taking in some new ideas...

Quote:


I'd rate you a 5 for that response alone but I did that a long time ago!




Hehe, yep, I got the desire to open up the ole' rates as well. :grin:
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2241893 - 01/14/04 02:17 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

What is "real"?

These: :wink:


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: MAIA]
    #2242472 - 01/14/04 06:22 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2243319 - 01/15/04 04:14 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

particularly the part in bold, is a very articulate explanation of what I hold to be true philosophically. Where did you get it? Which books or authors did you obtain it from??????




I have many written stuff which i like to transcribe when i ask a book borrowed from someone. I'm not a very organized person but i believe i read this from a Mortimer J. Adler book. I also think that explanation is very interesting, i was reading Kant at that time and i remember i enjoyed reading this.

Quote:

How does reductionism come into play here?




Me at work now :wink: but i'll try to answer it later.

Quote:

Are sure you don't have the terms turned around? I always thought that entia rationis was a theoretical construct and entia reale was things that existed in the first modality.




Oooops. You're absolutely right about this one, i'll change the text right away.... Oh my ....

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: MAIA]
    #2243516 - 01/15/04 08:21 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2243589 - 01/15/04 08:51 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Well, last time i read something written by Alder was in 1994. I remember he had the ability to make an idea accessible, which was what i wanted at that time. Sometimes understanding complicated philosophy books at a relative tender age is a hard task, Alder was a good support.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: MAIA]
    #2244802 - 01/15/04 07:38 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineillusions
peace not greed
Registered: 11/11/03
Posts: 35
Last seen: 17 years, 14 days
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2244807 - 01/15/04 07:41 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

anyting that can be percieved by the mind is not real.
we live in a world of illusions...


--------------------
we were born into the world of nature.
when we die, we are born into the world of spirit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: illusions]
    #2244866 - 01/15/04 08:12 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFrog
Warrior
Female User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 4,284
Loc: The Zero Point Field
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: MAIA]
    #2245123 - 01/15/04 09:40 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Time for me to finally read this thread and jump in, and I'm glad I did, because you guys are speaking of things about which I have been thinking lately.

Quote:

MAIA said:
The sphere of the real is defined as the sphere of existence that is totally independent of the human mind. The familiar distinction between appearance and reality calls our attention to the fact that there is sometimes a difference between the way things appear to us and way they really are - the character they have apart from our cognition of them.




This is what I have been talking about to a few people lately. Is my "reality" really my reality, or is it only my perception of reality? I said, "Either I am perceiving reality correctly and taking appropriate actions, and I'm doing well, or I am not perceiving reality correctly and the actions I'm taking are based on my delusions of what I think reality is, and I'm really just messed up.

Quote:

Existence has three modalities. The first is real existence, existence independent of the human mind and unaffected by it.




Or, reality as it is, for me, regardless of my interpretation of it.

Quote:

The second modality is subjective existence. The contents of the human mind, its sensations, perceptions, images, memories, and concepts, have existence in your mind and mine. Since you and I really exist, subjective existence is also one form of real existence.




Or, how I am perceiving my reality, and reacting to it, based on my sensations, perceptions, etc. And either I'm interpreting it correctly or not, reacting appropriately or not, I'm doing well or I'm all messed up.

Quote:

The third modality is neither totally independent of the human mind nor totally dependent on the individual mind. This third mode is the existence of all the objects of the human mind except perceptual objects. Other than perceptual objects, we must always ask whether they have real existence as well as objective existence, that is, existence as intended objects, the objects that the human mind intends or means.




I don't understand this. What are "perceptual" objects? Of what types of "objects" are you speaking?

Quote:


Because the mind can be directed toward nonexistent as well as real objects, phenomenological reflection does not presuppose that anything exists, but rather amounts to a "bracketing of existence," that is, setting aside the question of the real existence of the contemplated object. Therefore i think we can use phenomenology to determine the objective existence of an object, maybe a useful "tool" to be used in the third modality of existence.





Are you saying that phenomenology is useful to determine what is real or not real? If so, how is this a useful tool to be used in the third modality?


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFrog
Warrior
Female User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 4,284
Loc: The Zero Point Field
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2245130 - 01/15/04 09:42 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Oh. Guess I'd better go read "you don't know shit".


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: Frog]
    #2245174 - 01/15/04 09:58 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFrog
Warrior
Female User Gallery

Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 4,284
Loc: The Zero Point Field
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2245419 - 01/16/04 01:24 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Okay, and thank you, MM.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,396
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2252936 - 01/19/04 02:03 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

If so, how is this a useful tool to be used in the third modality?




Other than perceptual objects, we must always ask whether they have real existence as well as objective existence, that is, existence as intended objects, the objects that the human mind intends or means.

Look at your mouse resting beside you. The object has a real existence, you are capable of perceiving the mouse, it exists. Now close your eyes and create an image of that same object inside your mind, you still know it exists but this existence is just objective and not real because although you know it is there, the concept of the object is created inside your mind without being directly perceived by your senses.
How does phenomenology come into play. Well, phenomenology is pure contemplation without the need of the object itself but with the intention to capture its objective essence, something which the natural sciences or even philosophy can't perform because they need to "observe" before hand and not contemplate, which is the focus of phenomenology. IMHO this "contemplation" can be applied if we want to try to understand the objective existence of things without the need of an absolute method. This "contemplation" might create the notion of subjectivity in this whole idea but i think the notion of "objective existence" is also related with intentional existence.
The third mode of existence, is a middle ground between real existence and subjective existence. Real existence is existence independent of mind: it is the existence that physical things had before there were human beings on earth. Intentional existence is not independent of the human mind, but it is also not dependent on the existence of any one individual mind, as subjective existence is.
Objects that exist for two or more minds, objects that they can discuss with each other, have intentional existence. If there were no minds on earth, there would be no objects that had intentional existence. To summarize this middle ground between real existence and mental existence. It consists in (1) not being dependent on the acts of any particular human mind, and in this respect it differs from subjective existence. And (2) not being independent of the human mind in general, and in this respect it differs from real existence. It is a mode of existence that depends on there being some individual minds at work.

MAIA


--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: MAIA]
    #2253192 - 01/19/04 03:19 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly Flag
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2253277 - 01/19/04 03:44 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

i am forced to believe what i observe visually.

i try to keep my mind open, in that, i try to go into situations believing that anything is possible, and it is best as an observer, to believe nothing.


only my eyes, blind from overflow, can see, under your perception, it flows below.


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePHARMAKOS
addict
Registered: 09/13/02
Posts: 573
Last seen: 19 years, 8 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: Lallafa]
    #2253409 - 01/19/04 04:18 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

so the first modality, entia reale, is the concrete reality that we all inhabit. In a sense our conciousnesses, the viewpoints from which we percieve the first modality, (the 'shared reality') are a host of subjective interpreters floating through the real world and forming uniquely skewed interpretations of it inside their heads. FOr them though, the second modality is in fact the 'truer' of the two realities, in that the real reality can only exist as an intellectual concept, all that we 'know' though comes directly from the input of our senses.

How then can we ever establish that a real reality exists that is uniform for all people? perhaps we can grasp this from the implications of the fact that two people who observe (sense) the same external thing can provide diffrent explanations of what they have observed. Thus we can postulate that both a real world (the world shared by the two watchers) and an observed world (the one that is different for the two watchers, judging by the differances in there perception)
fair enough

but accepting that, is it then impossible for us to reach a reliable understanding of even a single aspect in the 'shared' world? that is, if ALL our understanding of reality comes from the sensory input of our eyes, nose, skin etc, than in order for any 'true' understanding of the world to occur we would have to have senses that are perfect in their 'accuracy' in relaying information about the real world.

That is, if we were to ever discuss any object ( any physical thing with substance) and hope to make it clear to another person, we would have to do so in terms of sensory data, or else words that carry the sensory data implicitly in their meaning. For example you try to describe an elephant. "it was grey, really big, it smelled like crap and it was crazy loud"

Now, all the information that has been transmitted is entirely sensory. But if two people are (and we know they are) capable or recieving the same SENSATIONS and yet observing as it were something totally diffrent, than not a speck of real information was actually transmitted through the above senses.

That is, a dog may percieve the entia reale in 2 'colours', black and white. A human in some 20 colours, and who knows maybe a shark sees in 2000 colours. If there is as much difference between all the other senses when compared from person to person as their is in sight, and we have every reason to believe there is, than how are we to ever concieve anything as 'true' or 'real', that is accurately transmitted from the reality to the senses to the mind?

someone said that everything is an illusion (not real) . How are we to dispute that if the only connection to 'reality' is through the senses? if one person sees a green computer and another sees the same computer as blue, than their is no possible agreement on truth. And , outside of the arrogant assumption that we are always correct, their is no way for the two people to know if they, the other or both are in fact seeing 'illusions'.

The best we can do is reach a consensus based on statistics and then declare that entia reale, and everything that differs from that consensus as delusion, hallucination, colour blindness, and so on. But is consenus really a believable definition of 'reality'? we have seen in the past that huge numbers of people are capable of percieving things entirely innacuratly. How then can we ever claim that a non subjective reality exists at all?

if a parrot for example could percieve more colours than humans, would that not negate all that we humans know about reality to the level of falsehood and self deception, in that our only tool to observe and understand the real world is the senses, and the parrot with his ability to percieve a colour we cannot, has thus proved our senses to be flawed, and thus our conception of reality, even a consensus of millions, to be flawed.

and this assumes also that no other sense is possible, that is that there are only 5 senses possible in the universe and that reality, whatever it is, is transmitted solely by the senses

i wonder sometimes: if we show a baby a 'blue thing' and call it blue, that baby learns to see whatever colour he in fact percieves and call it 'blue'. but due to the structure of our language, it is impossible to know if what that baby sees as blue is in fact even remotely similar to what we see as blue. His blue and your blue might be completely diffrent, even though you could both point at the sky and say 'look how blue it is"

so , if indeed the ONLY possible means of understanding reality is through the senses, and the senses are not perfect in their 'accuracy' than how can we claim that their is any truth?
i guess we can INFER the existance of a concrete truth and simply say that no person can ever really know it, but does something that can only be infered and never observed really be said to exist?

:nut:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: What is "real"? [Re: PHARMAKOS]
    #2253435 - 01/19/04 04:24 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly Flag
Re: What is "real"? [Re: PHARMAKOS]
    #2253459 - 01/19/04 04:32 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Do You Realize - we're floating in space -
Do You Realize - that happiness makes you cry
Do You Realize - that everyone you know someday will die

And instead of saying all of your goodbyes - let them know
You realize that life goes fast
It's hard to make the good things last
You realize the sun don'-go down
It's just an illusion caused by the world spinning round



-flaminglips


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePHARMAKOS
addict
Registered: 09/13/02
Posts: 573
Last seen: 19 years, 8 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: Lallafa]
    #2253650 - 01/19/04 05:41 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

for some reason when mr mushrooms gives you googly eyes it makes you feel real special

i always sort of think of him as the god of classical philosophy on this board, but that might have something to do with his avatar :smile:

lets just say i cant wait to get out of highschool so i can begin the 'hard life of the philosopher' in earnest, although there might be more drugs, and mexico

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: PHARMAKOS]
    #2255209 - 01/20/04 05:55 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Bubbles was even better at invoking thoughts of Mr. Mushrooms being a god of classical philosophy on this board.  :loveeyes:

We want Bubbles! We want Bubbles!  :lol:

Ugh.. my head hurts like a motherfucker.. I have had like a fever or something, and I feel like shit. If you want to know why I'm not really posting much except for stuff that requires not much thinking, you now know why.  :frown:
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegnrm23
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/29/99
Posts: 6,488
Loc: n. e. OH, USSA
Last seen: 5 months, 11 days
Re: What is "real"? [Re: ]
    #2255220 - 01/20/04 06:04 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

"and the princess and the prince discuss
what is real and what is not
it doesn't matter
inside the gates of eden"
~
(attributed to the sage of hibbing, ca. mid-20th century, USA, terra, sol system, sirius sector, local arm, "milky way" galaxy, local cluster, local supercluster, timeline "armstrong.1.a")


--------------------
old enough to know better
not old enough to care

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePHARMAKOS
addict
Registered: 09/13/02
Posts: 573
Last seen: 19 years, 8 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: gnrm23]
    #2256558 - 01/20/04 03:19 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

so mr.mushrooms... any more thoughts? you were of the oppinion that the concrete world does exist, that the theory 'everything is an illusion' is incorrect. But to defend that position, would it not be nescessary to show even a single thing to be true? and how can this be done if all that we know of truth comes from the senses, which can decieve us?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePHARMAKOS
addict
Registered: 09/13/02
Posts: 573
Last seen: 19 years, 8 months
Re: What is "real"? [Re: gnrm23]
    #2256560 - 01/20/04 03:19 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

so mr.mushrooms... any more thoughts? you were of the oppinion that the concrete world does exist, that the theory 'everything is an illusion' is incorrect. But to defend that position, would it not be nescessary to show even a single thing to be true? and how can this be done if all that we know of truth comes from the senses, which can decieve us?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Reality isn't real
( 1 2 3 all )
ShroomismM 4,960 43 09/24/06 03:01 PM
by Telepylus
* Review of the last century's phenomenology
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Swami 4,730 68 11/21/02 11:42 PM
by Jellric
* The phenomenology of death.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
deCypher 4,077 63 11/25/08 03:30 PM
by deranger
* Why is Phenomenology so esoteric and difficult? spud 1,342 5 04/28/07 11:52 PM
by spud
* Maurice Merleau-Ponty, phenomenology Malachi 847 4 12/17/03 10:24 AM
by fireworks_god
* Objective reality challange gribochek 1,861 8 01/31/02 09:20 PM
by Swank
* Objective, real, imaginary... same thing Ulysees 1,536 15 02/10/02 01:11 AM
by ArCh_TemPlaR
* Subjective v. Objective Reality
( 1 2 all )
Joshua 4,237 24 01/31/03 07:31 PM
by Joshua

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,148 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.