XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   noname wrote:   
   > {:-]))) wrote:   
   >> Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   >>> {:-]))) wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> To think there is what is called the one true reality   
   >>>> independent of all viewers might be called a   
   >>>> sort of hypothetical situation.   
   >>>   
   >>> Agreed. To 'think' that there is one true reality independent of all   
   >>> viewers is a hypothetical situation.   
   >>>   
   >>> On the other hand, to *know* the one true reality, is to know that it's   
   >>> the same for everyone.   
   >>   
   >> Two people will experience any   
   >> so-called event, or, reality, different.   
   >>   
   >> Hence, there is no, "same" for everyone.   
   >   
   >You keep making this same logic error.   
      
   Semantics tend to vary.   
   Logic tends to be logical.   
      
   >  Yes, everybody experiences things   
   >differently, but what they are experiencing is the same actual universe,   
   >which doesn't care how many people experience it in how many ways, it is   
   >simply what it is.   
      
   Logically, that appears to me to be an assertion. A premise.   
   If the premise is granted as being the case, then, logically,   
   what follows might be true, and sound and not simply valid.   
      
   If I drink a glass of water, then you can't drink it.   
      
   Logically, that results since I already drank it.   
   You are drinking a different glass of water.   
      
   That sounds logical, and sound, to me.   
      
   You might assert it's the same water.   
   And I, in this case, would say, no, it isn't.   
      
   If we go swimming in a river of water,   
   you might claim it's the same water we're in,   
   except, actually, it isn't. Nor was it the same yesterday.   
   Nor will it be the same water tomorrow.   
      
   You may assert seeing is different from drinking   
   or swimming. And that the river is really not conceived.   
      
   Yet in another post you asserted, "Water is real, rivers are things   
   men conceive when they observe water ... "   
      
   >>> This is not a hypothetical, but an actual situation. The universe, as it   
   >>> exists here and now.   
   >>   
   >> To presume there is a thing, the universe,   
   >> or any so-called thing, is a presumption to begin with.   
   >>   
   >> It's called carving the Uncarved Block.   
   >> It's a myth within a myth standing on guilded legs.   
   >>   
   >> If you taste some so-called thing, someone else can't.   
   >>   
   >> What you tasted is gone by your tasting of it.   
   >>   
   >> Two people can't eat the same candy.   
   >   
   >More of the same logic error.   
      
   Semantics affect logic.   
      
   > Two people can look at the same painting.   
      
   That's an assertion.   
      
   >What they see is the same painting.   
      
   So you say. And that's okay.   
   I say nay and neigh. Two horse a round.   
      
   >  What they perceive is not the same   
   >perception.  What they experience is not the same experience.  But the   
   >painting is just the painting, it's the same to everyone who sees it,   
   >though what they see is always different.   
      
   The painting ages over time. It is not the same today   
   as it was yesterday nor as it was when being painted.   
      
   When it dried, it was different. As it ages it changes.   
   When it is 1000 years old, it is not the same as it was.   
      
   To think or to have thought it is or was can be thought.   
      
   To suppose, or assert, that two people on the same day   
   are seeing the exact same painting can be supposed,   
   presupposed, asserted, claimed, stipulated, etc.   
      
   When someone touches the painting, that changes it.   
   Paint sticks on the finger and the finger prints itself   
   on to the painting which makes the painting different.   
      
   If one shreds the painting to shreds and then claims   
   it is the same painting, that's a claim.   
      
   Logically, it might sound good.   
      
   Semantics are what makes it sound.   
      
   - context rules the daze and the knights   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)