On Jul 15, 12:48Â am, chazwin
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jul 14, 3:21 pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Jul 14, 7:23 pm, chazwin
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>> On Jul 14, 1:00 am, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:>
>>>> On Jul 14, 12:54 am, Malrassic Park
hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:19:33 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
>
>>>>>>Give em something to refute man.
>
>
>>>>>>[C] - The Critique of Pure Reason
>
>>>>>>What is meant by this title? Critique is not precisely a criticism,
>>>>>>but a critical analysis; Kant is not attacking "pure reason," except,
>>>>>>at the end, to show its limitations; rather he hopes to show its
>>>>>>possibility, and to exalt it above the impure knowledge which comes to
>>>>>>us through the distorting channels of sense.
>
>>>>> That's a terrible interpretation of Kant. Now I can see where Rand got
>>>>> some of her "distorting" ideas about Kant, from popular scribblings
>>>>> such as Durant's.
>
>>>>> --
>
>>>>> " If I had remembered that the name 'Galt' appears
>>>>> in one of her books, I would have chosen a different
>>>>> name for my character."
>
>>>>> Stephen R. Donaldson, "Gradual Interview"- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>>> There's a sure fire way of recognising the exposing of genuinely
>>>> higher truth such as Kants, even if one doesnt understand the content.
>>>> It sparks great divides in understanding from people involved in the
>>>> subject matter. Confirmation of aspects of 'lessor truth' for each
>>>> segment.
>
>>>> Someone says "reality is how your percieve something", a common
>>>> response would be "no it isnt".
>
>>>> One looks for and needs argument, the other does not.
>
>>>> BOfL
>
>>> The above is incoherent.
>
>> No it isnt!..Get my point?
>
>>> Â In what way do you suggest that one truth be higher than another?
>
>> Im sure you are familiar with the elephant analogy, when described by
>> blind men.
>
> And so...?
If you understood the analogy, you wouldnt respond that way.
>
>
>
>>> How can recognition of this truth be achieved without context?
>
>> The context is recognition of parts of the whole.
>
> Answer the question!
They way you would like it answered? Mr Macinroe..
>
>
>
>>> Â What is the "It" to which you refer in the following sentence that
>>> "sparks great divides"?
>
>> That reality is not how one percieves.
>
>>> How are the people across the "divide" involved?
>>> Â "Confirmation of aspects of 'lessor truth' for each segment." - this
>>> is not a sentence.
>
>> That is the wrong use of a -.
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>
>>> No one say reality is how you perceive something.
>
>> I do. I thought the evidence would have been there in front of you.
>> Seeing as you are being so pedantic, for "say" (I assume you mean
>> says), read write.
>
> Reality is not HOW you perceive!
Yes it is.
>Reality might what you perceive, or
> reality might be a greater whole of that which you perceive.
Thats the way you see it, not the way I do.What you percieve of me is
not reality. How you do, is.
Of course the difficulty in understanding becomes greater, as existing
definitions of some words are no longer valid.
> But HOW
> you perceive is with your sense organs. Sense organs are not reality,
> but a small part of it.
Reality is not made up of parts. An example of what I just referred
to.
> Answer this: "do you really think that sense organs are reality?",
> because your sentence means that you do think that.
Not if you take my last comment on board.
I doubt you will agree, but that is where Im coming from.
> I think what you are really trying to say is that reality is what we
> perceive with our sense organs.
I understand thats what you think, and is to do with how you think.
Your 'current' reality.
>
>
>
>>> They MIGHT say
>>> reality is that which you perceive.
>
>> Wrong again. Some actually do....as I do sometimes.
>
> You are pretty stupid, you know.
Another example of how you think.
> I say "might" and you say "wrong they
> do". Might implies that some do , idiot. So either I am not wrong, or
> you are wrong - or both.
You have a great gift for slightly altering the specifics of a comment
to comply with your perception.
>
> Then you are incoherent, and need to make your views clear with
> language more effectively.
Surely only a stupid idiot would ask a stupid idiot to use language
more effectively?
Notice the question mark, befor you start editing again.
>
>
>
>>>So the response: "no it isn't" is
>>> correct, but not for the reason you think it is.
>
>> So you now know what Im thinking?
>
> I don't even think that YOU know what you are thinking. You certainly
> have not managed to gather your thoughts into a coherent thread.
You have to understand the structure and nature of thoughts to
appreciate coherence.
> Would you like me to summarise your faults?
All faults are subjective.
Would be more useful to you to contemplate the structure and nature of
thoughts.
>
>>> This invalidates the
>>> final sentence.
>
>> You illustrate my point. That is 'your truth', but the 'greater truth'
>> is what I intended. Yours was an interpretation, even though you were
>> being truthful with your interpretation.
>
> If you had a point I would be happy to validate it for you.
Im not here for validation.
>
> My advice: take a little time away, come back and read your own words
> bcak to yourself, and see if you think they make any sense.
......or to give or recieve advice.
> Let me unpack you second sentence here.
> "That is 'your truth', but the 'greater truth' is what I intend
> The structure of the sentence poses 2 subjects, connected by a
> condition, these objects are connected to the object "what I
> intended". To parse the sentence you are inviting me to equate that
> which you intended with two things disconnected by a "but", neither of
> which is an intention. Neither "that is you truth" nor " the greater
> truth" can be an intention, as intentions imply an action. You might
> be trying to say this:
> " I did/not demonstrate "your truth" but did/not demonstrate "greater
> truth", is what I intended".
> Is this what you mean to say?
You mean is that what I "meant" to say? Are you not getting confused
with your past participles?
You remind me of the centurian played by John Cleese in the L Of B
movie, who was discecting the graffiti grammer of the Judeans Peoples
Front, and didnt see they were threatening to bring down the
government.
There's a lot of it about
>
> And what of this: "Yours was an interpretation, even though you were
>
>
>
>> being truthful with your interpretation." My what - my truth -my intention?
You were making 'what I considered' to be a comparison of truth and
perception.
So as not to evoke your 'supid idiot' response,I suggest refer back to
the elephant analogy, and that you figure it out for yourself, further
illustrating my point being "reality is how you preceive".
But obviously , not to you. (not a complete sentence, but the use of
poetic licence.)
BOfL
