XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   {:-])))  wrote:   
   > noname wrote:   
   >   
   >> It is not the color or tint of the spectacles through which you view   
   >> reality that matters, it is whether what you see through it is true or   
   >> false.  Looking through a viewpoint tinted blue, or tinted atheist, or   
   >> tinted fundy-Christian, it doesn't mater a bit what shape or color the   
   >> world you see has.  What matters is what the world you see does, and what   
   >> significance you perceive in that.  When multiple people who have different   
   >> viewpoints see the same thing, the same reality, behaving in the same way,   
   >> they are seeing the same thing, through different sets of spectacles, each   
   >> adjusted to the eyes of the viewer who wears them.  In other words there is   
   >> no one true shape or color for spectacles,   
   >   
   > If there is no one true shape or color of the spectacles,   
   > it might be said views are all true and all false, or, partial,   
   > since there are no views, if there are no views, without them.   
      
   That's a bit twisty for me to parse, sorry.   
      
   >   
   >> but there is just one reality,   
   >   
   > I'd call that a paradigm of sorts.   
   > I like that one as much as I like others.   
   >   
   > If everyone sees it different and is involved   
   > then at another level there are as many realities   
   > as there are viewers of what is said to be the one.   
   >   
   > In other words, the viewers are not apart from   
   > but are a part of the one which makes it many.   
   >   
   > The one Venn that includes them all   
   > is the union of all that intersect each other.   
   >   
   >> that can be seen truly through many kinds of viewer.  Or more often, seen   
   >> falsely through delusion rooted in desire, or misunderstanding rooted in   
   >> the naive ignorance of childhood.   
   >   
   > The desire or misunderstanding is real enough.   
   > Naive ignorance of childhood is also real.   
   >   
   > To discount those as being false can be called, semantics.   
   > Calling them, incomplete, might be a different word.   
   > Or, pointing out how they are problematic   
   > might assist one in problem solving.   
   > Assuming one has problems   
   > with desires, etc.   
   >   
   >> And even if one finds the magical   
   >> microscope focus point, attempting to compare notes with others is   
   >> difficult, because they may be hearing what you see, or smelling something   
   >> entirely different from what others hear.   
   >   
   > Because their realities are different.   
      
   Their realities are different, but *the* reality they see and know for what   
   it is, that is the same for all who see it, regardless of whether they see   
   it by smelling it, or by hearing it, or by reading instruments that tell   
   them about it.   
      
   > Because their experiences differ.   
   > Which is why their minds differ.   
   > And none are exactlly alike.   
   >   
   > To think there is what is called the one true reality   
   > independent of all viewers might be called a   
   > sort of hypothetical situation.   
      
   You can call it whatever you like, but you cannot disprove it.  The   
   acceptance of an absolute reality is a matter of personal choice, but its   
   existence is not; if it were not a matter of truth, the whole would amount   
   to the solipsistic dreams of an intelligence bored stupid.  I think that if   
   you simply call it "consensus reality" where the "consensus" is the   
   commonality between all sentiences with regard to which parts of "their"   
   reality are also part of "consensus" reality, you might get close to the   
   truth of the absolutes of reality, but you'd get damned little consensus at   
   the edges of things, and waffling in the middle, imo.   
      
   >   
   > By consensus, people may accept such a notion.   
   > At the same time, within each within the one, all differ.   
   >   
   > - in an ocean of realities   
   >   
      
   There is a choice, between the existence of free-choice, and its   
   non-existence.  Those who fear, pretend belief that there is no   
   free-choice, so they can claim non-culpability and gain the spotlight as   
   whining victims of the drama they have created of themselves; those who   
   know free-choice to be real are free from the slavery of victimism but must   
   suffer the slings and arrows of their own stupidity, which the Buddhists   
   call "suffering" by some name or other, until they can man-up and pay their   
   karmic debts down to a positive value.   
      
   This is some boring shit, It may be necessary to do anything except reading   
   it, because it's way down there near the bottom of the boring-shit scale,   
   right next to fuck-this-lets-party.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)