Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 Dan:... The reason there is no separate awareness is because nothing is separable from awareness. ivan: Realy? But there is a mind separate from it's content??!! A separate fixed ongoing mind... Ivan, It doesn't seem like Dan is saying there is a mind ... are you saying he does? Or do YOU say there is such a thing?? ivan: No greg, he is not saying that here. And i say there is not such a thing. But here is how we started: (Dan): What appears to arise as matter, motion, time and space is contentless. It is we who *describe* things as matter, motion, etc. What is the meaning of "It is we who *describe* things as matter, motion, etc"? And further: Ivan: Matter may exist without description. Dan: Not if you observe the descriptive function of sensory perception. Again i wanted to clarify that. So materiality is just a sensory perception? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1999 Report Share Posted September 28, 1999 At 08:53 PM 9/27/99 , Ivan wrote: Dan: Not if you observe the descriptive function of sensory perception. > >Again i wanted to clarify that. So materiality is just >a sensory perception? Ivan, Though Dan is admirably capable of speaking for himself here, I couldn't resist jumping in at this point. I don't think Dan is saying that materiality "is just" sensory perception or that it is reducible to sensory perception. I think he's pointing to the interdependency between materiality and sensory perception. We wouldn't think there's such a thing as perception if we didn't think there was a material world to cause it. And we wouldn't think there's a material world if we didn't think we had perception to perceive it. If they are both dependent on the other, neither one can be real. The question above seems to be yours, "So materiality is just a sensory perception?" -- what would you say? Love, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1999 Report Share Posted September 28, 1999 Dan: Not if you observe the descriptive function of sensory perception. Again i wanted to clarify that. So materiality is just a sensory perception? Ivan, Though Dan is admirably capable of speaking for himself here, I couldn't resist jumping in at this point. I don't think Dan is saying that materiality "is just" sensory perception or that it is reducible to sensory perception. I think he's pointing to the interdependency between materiality and sensory perception. We wouldn't think there's such a thing as perception if we didn't think there was a material world to cause it. And we wouldn't think there's a material world if we didn't think we had perception to perceive it. If they are both dependent on the other, neither one can be real. The question above seems to be yours, "So materiality is just a sensory perception?" -- what would you say? Love, --Greg ivan: Hi Greg. Of course Dan can speak for himself, and admirably well i agree. He even sang some old Beattles song through the net .....something like "...dis is lis, das is lat...obla di obla da..." <;;;;> But that doesn't mean we can't talk of this matter also. All we see, hear, smell, touch, taste and even think, comes to us through the senses....right? Our manifested world is sensorial. Senses are our windows and doors to humanity. So one may say... ...look, that stone is just in your mind, because it's materiality comes through the senses to the brain. So there is a real stone out there, and the senses transmit some input to the brain that interprets it as solidity. Isn't this what you are saying/implying? Let's forget Dan here. 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.