Guest guest Posted November 28, 1999 Report Share Posted November 28, 1999 >dear greg, > i have pasted here a part of your message of a few days(about 2 >weeks) back--on the perception discussion.: > > You say that "What 'exists' (the thing in itself) is not perceived," and >a >bit later, "We don't perceive reality but the impression that it makes on >the internal instrument and, the internal instrument as it's fitness may be >shows us the picture of reality.." Let me boil these down into very simple >terms: > > (a) There exists an X. > (b) But we don't percieve X. > (b) X makes an impression on the internal instrument. > (d) The impression is not X but rather a picture of X. > >This is the classic realist position, and is taught and reinforced >throughout Western society. The trouble is, from the standpoing of not >going beyond our experience and logic, what evidence do we have for the >truth of (a)-(d)? Can we establish any one of these statements? OK, Devendra, o ye of the quick sabbatical! I think I'm with you on this. I was outlining a realist argument, breaking down into steps something that you'd written previously. Now, below, you respond to it, right? >>>now ,the basic q. is how do we know (a)-(d)?in my limited understanding >>>---does'nt this conclusion(a-d) follow from perceptual relativity?. Perceptual relativity is related to (a) - (d), but it doesn't establish (a)-(d). Perceptual relativity is a better argument against this: (a') There exists an X. (b') We percieve X. Relativy would come in to show that X looks different under different light, so is X really changing color? Certainly not. So there must be some mediation going on, sense data coming in, being judged differently to account for the changes in conditions, etc. The outcome of that would be a critical realism, like Robert was discussing. The upshot is: what is the evidence for (a')? >>>also,as >>>long as we feel "our" consciousness is connected/limited to the body,we >>>have to admit 'things' apart from 'us' and our perception of them through >>>some perceptual process/mechanism. Good point, but we don't *have* to admit things apart from us. What we can in fact do is take advantage of these reasonings to begin to investigate whether the claim to external reality apart from consciousness makes any sense. If we realize in a flash that it doesn't make sense (the kind of flash you get when you get the answer to a math problem), then at that same instant, we might realize that consciousness is not limited to the body. I'm not sure how the pure reasoning part is taught in advaita vedanta by the teacher apart from scriptures, but in the Tibetan Middle Way tradition, there is lots and lots of instruction on various reasonings and meditations that show that objects of sense and thought cannot have inherent existence. Regards, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 1999 Report Share Posted November 28, 1999 Good point, but we don't *have* to admit things apart from us. What we can in fact do is take advantage of these reasonings to begin to investigate whether the claim to external reality apart from consciousness makes any sense. >>in a vyavaharika sense i feel we *have* to(this may be stupid:-if we stab >>ourselves with a knife we feel pain but not so if we stab a table)--but >>you are right we can take this as a base camp and then >>start.rgds-devendra. >Greg Goode <goode >advaitin >advaitin >Re: Devendra/realism. >Sun, 28 Nov 1999 16:40:51 -0500 > > >dear greg, > > i have pasted here a part of your message of a few days(about >2 > >weeks) back--on the perception discussion.: > > > > You say that "What 'exists' (the thing in itself) is not perceived," >and > >a > >bit later, "We don't perceive reality but the impression that it makes on > >the internal instrument and, the internal instrument as it's fitness may >be > >shows us the picture of reality.." Let me boil these down into very >simple > >terms: > > > > (a) There exists an X. > > (b) But we don't percieve X. > > (b) X makes an impression on the internal instrument. > > (d) The impression is not X but rather a picture of X. > > > >This is the classic realist position, and is taught and reinforced > >throughout Western society. The trouble is, from the standpoing of not > >going beyond our experience and logic, what evidence do we have for the > >truth of (a)-(d)? Can we establish any one of these statements? > >OK, Devendra, o ye of the quick sabbatical! I think I'm with you on this. >I was outlining a realist argument, breaking down into steps something that >you'd written previously. Now, below, you respond to it, right? > > >>>now ,the basic q. is how do we know (a)-(d)?in my limited understanding > >>>---does'nt this conclusion(a-d) follow from perceptual relativity?. > >Perceptual relativity is related to (a) - (d), but it doesn't establish >(a)-(d). Perceptual relativity is a better argument against this: > > (a') There exists an X. > (b') We percieve X. > >Relativy would come in to show that X looks different under different >light, so is X really changing color? Certainly not. So there must be >some mediation going on, sense data coming in, being judged differently to >account for the changes in conditions, etc. The outcome of that would be a >critical realism, like Robert was discussing. > >The upshot is: what is the evidence for (a')? > > >>>also,as > >>>long as we feel "our" consciousness is connected/limited to the body,we > >>>have to admit 'things' apart from 'us' and our perception of them >through > >>>some perceptual process/mechanism. > >Good point, but we don't *have* to admit things apart from us. What we can >in fact do is take advantage of these reasonings to begin to investigate >whether the claim to external reality apart from consciousness makes any >sense. If we realize in a flash that it doesn't make sense (the kind of >flash you get when you get the answer to a math problem), then at that same >instant, we might realize that consciousness is not limited to the body. >I'm not sure how the pure reasoning part is taught in advaita vedanta by >the teacher apart from scriptures, but in the Tibetan Middle Way tradition, >there is lots and lots of instruction on various reasonings and meditations >that show that objects of sense and thought cannot have inherent existence. > >Regards, > >--Greg > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives >are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email >Address: advaitins > ><< text3.html >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.