Guest guest Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Dear Dennis and advaitins generally, It's that little word 'real' that pulls it away from the scope of physics into, well, what? When in Science class did you encounter the 'real' as the subject for investigation? Would you titrate for it or bombard for it in a cyclotron? Part of this metaphysical investigation into first principles is to discover the oddness of the notion of 'real'. Have you ever encountered the 'real'? Is it the sort of thing that you could encounter? How can we be talking about it if we cannot even conceptualise it? Best Wishes, Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Part of this metaphysical investigation into first > principles is to discover the oddness of the notion of 'real'. Have you > ever encountered the 'real'? Is it the sort of thing that you could > encounter? How can we be talking about it if we cannot even conceptualise > it? > > Best Wishes, > Michael > SANKARA Acharya said that group of symbols is a word and expression of these words is creation. However, mature logical ideology may be still it is partial and different from the real. Negation of all psychological impressions is to be wise. Terminology itself is abstract as you know.Any coined word may be applied either to the subject or object conceived.All human investigation is from the word to the word and in to the word.Language we speak write and think is virtual reality.Hence one may conceive ideology only which is useful for attending tasks. thank you sekhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Dear Michael, I think you will find that it was you who used the word 'real'! You said: " Clay according to this way of thinking is more real than cups, plates and pots " and asked: " Are atoms more real than the elements of the Periodic Table? " What I said in response was that " It is not that atoms are more real than the elemental form but, if you examine the element 'more closely', you find that atoms more accurately describe what you see. " I don't see any need to get hung up on the word 'real'. It is used by advaita in the sense that, when we wake up, we realize that the dream was not real. Surely we all recognize this meaning and do not get confused? Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of ombhurbhuva Friday, September 11, 2009 1:14 AM advaitin polar concepts Dear Dennis and advaitins generally, It's that little word 'real' that pulls it away from the scope of physics into, well, what? When in Science class did you encounter the 'real' as the subject for investigation? Would you titrate for it or bombard for it in a cyclotron? Part of this metaphysical investigation into first principles is to discover the oddness of the notion of 'real'. Have you ever encountered the 'real'? Is it the sort of thing that you could encounter? How can we be talking about it if we cannot even conceptualise it? Best Wishes, Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Dear Michael, > > > > I think you will find that it was you who used the word 'real'! You said: > " Clay according to this way of thinking is more real than cups, plates and > pots " and asked: " Are atoms more real than the elements of the Periodic > Table? " What I said in response was that " It is not that atoms are more real > than the elemental form but, if you examine the element 'more closely', you > find that atoms more accurately describe what you see. " > > > A Correspondence theory of knowledge about what exists claims that " true " knowledge of reality represents accurate correspondence of statements about and images of reality with the actual reality that the statements or images are attempting to represent. For example, the scientific method can verify that a statement is true based on the observable evidence that a thing exists. Many humans can point to the Rocky Mountains and say that this mountain range exists, and continues to exist even if no one is observing it or making statements about it. However, there is nothing that we can observe and name, and then say that it will exist forever. Eternal beings, if they exist, would need to be described by some method other than scientific thank you sekhar > I don't see any need to get hung up on the word 'real'. It is used by > advaita in the sense that, when we wake up, we realize that the dream was > not real. Surely we all recognize this meaning and do not get confused? > > > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > > > advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf > Of ombhurbhuva > Friday, September 11, 2009 1:14 AM > advaitin > polar concepts Dear Dennis and advaitins generally, > It's that little word 'real' that pulls it away from the scope of physics > into, well, what? When in Science class did you encounter the 'real' as > the subject for investigation? Would you titrate for it or bombard for it > in a cyclotron? Part of this metaphysical investigation into first > principles is to discover the oddness of the notion of 'real'. Have you > ever encountered the 'real'? Is it the sort of thing that you could > encounter? How can we be talking about it if we cannot even conceptualise > it? > > Best Wishes, > Michael > > > > > > 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.