I see a post responding to the one that answers this question about how perception is reality is perception and neither answer is more right than the other.
Printable View
How is a picture of a white figure over a black background relevant to anything in this thread? (besides the nonsensical ramblings)
Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. You do not understand. You are not enlightened like me.
Not just relevance... Any word... Any thing...
When one makes a mistake they just have a different take on the situation...
Who misses what?
Nonsensical ramblings?
Who's who to say who is or isn't this or that?
It's an awfully long way from here to there...
Don't mind me... what I say is neither here nor there...
Who is asking the questions? Who is the beholder of the eye?
There is no who... :P
Nevermind, I can't talk... haha
Don't ask questions. Neither of you two know the truth. I know the truth. I am enlightened. Don't ask questions.
You think you know the truth - but you do not. I do.
Nice try, but no.
I didn't state a perspective, I stated an objective observation.
If we speak using the English language, then that picture is a white figure over a black background, it doesn't matter what concept you attach to the figure.
If you call that two faces, if you call that a vase, whatever you call it, it's still the same figure with the same lines defining it. So my question stands:
How is relevant... relevant to the thread?
Relevance reveals only what one is willing to revel in.
This revelation becomes the answer to your question of relevance...
The apocalypse...
Fear not...
Your image and vague response is only a pathetic dodge of the question.
All you have done is proven your intellectual incompetence while trying to maintain a pretentious pseudo-intellecutality by blatantly dodging all forms of criticism.
You defend yourself to the death and cannot accept feedback nor criticism on any of your posts or ideals. No one can discuss with you because your unfalsifiable logic is compounded by your subtle arrogance.
While I tried my best to converse with you, all you have done is offered nothing in return but anecdotal reasoning and defense of your own stance rather than taking any responsibility for possibly being wrong or being capable of learning something.
But you don't need to learn anything anymore, apparently.
Please do not waste your time responding with vague semantic arguments over the words I am using to re-define your world. It is only your defense to show that you are intellectually incompetent and cannot acknowledge others opinions or accept criticism.
EDIT:
I thought I should add that I fully am aware that you are trying to illustrate the problems of perception and opinion. However, you do not even remotely try to purport your perception of my opinion which was what I was asking for.
You have done nothing but failed as a developing human being.
~
I was referring to the opening post. ;)
My image wasn't even specifically directed at your question. It was an example of how we can perceive the same thing in different ways; an analogy of your question(s) and the whole thread, not a singular response.
There is nothing to defend; and if you think this is about proving who's right and wrong and criticizing beliefs, you've mistaken the context of this paradigm - which you happen to have brought up in the first place.
Starting this thread with questions and asking "What do you think?" are the same. You cannot avoid your perception in the world. Again O'nus, you have already stated that:
I have agreed, and replied we have already outlined this. What more do you want?Quote:
+ Subjectivity is the only certain knowledge
+ Subjective experience can never be represented or properly expressed
+ You cannot truly understand each level of self-transcendence until you have reached it
Actually, now that I think of this ^ again, why have you jumped to this conclusion? You have stated:Quote:
+ There is a level of self-understanding in which the self can truly feel "one" with everything (the definition of "one" is irrelevant as I think we can all agree that it is a feeling of tranquility due to existential-like reasoning, etc.)
Actually, I think there is arrogance that you think you can even define "our world" at all, let alone your own! Again, you've already admitted this isn't even possible. Here, the intellect is incompetent, and that is why you think there is constant failing. If anything, the basic limitations are abstractly illustrated through consciousness research - which you're probably not even interested in.Quote:
+ You cannot truly understand each level of self-transcendence until you have reached it.
If you're "fully aware", why do you even repeat the flawed questions? Where is the importance; the reliability in that?
It comes down to this.
Some people are way to out in the clouds.
Some people are way to "reality" based.
OMG SCIENCE SAID NOOOOO, when really science didn't say no. Just a theory doesn't exist yet.
Peace
Loosely tied together topics zoning in different directions is pointless.
Formulate a sensible question not a 4 part whimsical going over the same questions already answered.
Life is obviously experienced from each persons subjective viewpoint, their is no arguing that.
You will know when it hits you.
Yes yes, we already know you have no fuckin idea what O'nus' point was. There's no need for you to reiterate that.