suzy smith
Life is for having fun
I can't agree with you when you say ‘ facts and proofs and how they are translated by the mind into "truth" is a very unsure pathway’. I would give up and just amuse myself with doing the dishes and reading romantic paperback books if that were true. I certainly wouldn't allow my mind to be influenced my the things you promote. And that is the gulf that separates us I think.But as we've covered already, what you assume to be facts and proofs and how they are translated by the mind into "truth" is a very unsure pathway. You assume the mind can be free from influence, while at the same time evaluating itself by itself and the reliable evaluator of reality. The truth of the world to a child of six is not the same truth of the world to an adult of 60, even though they are looking at the same "facts".
I was just reading this written by Evelyn Underhill which oddly underscores what I have been getting at (this is my first reading of her),
"It is immediately apparent, however, that this sense-world, this seemingly real external universe—though it may be useful and valid in other respects—cannot be the external world, but only the Self’s projected picture of it. It is a work of art, not a scientific fact; and, whilst it may well possess the profound significance proper to great works of art, is dangerous if treated as a subject of analysis. Very slight investigation shows that it is a picture whose relation to reality is at best symbolic and approximate, and which would have no meaning for selves whose senses, or channels of communication, happened to be arranged upon a different plan. The evidence of the senses, then, cannot be accepted as evidence of the nature of ultimate reality: useful servants, they are dangerous guides. Nor can their testimony disconcert those seekers whose reports they appear to contradict."
It appears to me that the surety of what you or I think and reason, is itself an illusion of reality. And when we are able to perceive reality outside that single apparatus of cognitive thoughts, we see those themselves for what they are. Until then, they are the only set of eyes we look through, and therefore are unable to see those eyes as eyes. To argue for their supremacy without any other perspective but their own, is like arguing the Bible is the word of God, because the Bible says so. It's self-referential.
I can see and accept the possibility that what we see is not the real world. Maybe we are all just part of a computer game like that film the matrix?
What I do draw the line at is accepting for one moment that organized religion holds the answers. Go down that road and I might just as well believe in the tooth fairy. And she seems much nicer than the God of the Bible to me.
I will accept the facts as I see them until something or someone shows me I am wrong.
An absurd argument was presented to me on another forum last week. ‘You can’t prove gravity’ he said. O.K. I said, so ‘if I drop a hammer on your head from a great height will you not move out of the way then?’
No offence but when you say ‘ when we are able to perceive reality outside that single apparatus of cognitive thoughts’ I walk away from your argument. That’s not reality to me.
I may seem to give a simple argument here but that’s how I see it…….now back to the b****y dishes.
Last edited: