Originally posted by Raithere
Are you even reading my posts? This is exactly what I'm saying… though I believe I said it a bit more clearly than "love seems to be similar but different".
You said love is an ‘abstract’ ‘concept,’ that is not what I am saying.
abstract- to do with or existing in thought rather than matter, or in theory rather than practise; not tangible or concrete.
I believe love to be very subtle but tangible, just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean it is non-existent, as anything, it can be perceived through the senses, mind and intelligence, should you want to. You also described it as a ‘concept’ that ‘we use’ as a ‘label’ to describe an experienced emotion, again we are not on the same wave length. To me love is natural, one doesn’t need to be taught how to love, love in its highest expression is un-conditional, the most common expression of unconditional love, is the love between mother and child, especially at the baby stage. The mother doesn’t ask for anything but gives everything despite the childs unawareness. I know nowadays things seem to be changing with regards to social conditioning, but nevertheless it is still very prominent, not because it is a concept, because it is natural.
So in answer to your question, yes I am reading your posts.
No, I'm not. Wherever did you get that idea?
I asked if you were saying we cannot share what is in our minds You said, “No Unless you've found a way to transfer you emotions and experiences directly into my mind.”
Conveying what you experience through words, music, art, etc. you can share a translation of what's in your mind but that is not the same thing.
How do you know?
I already gave you an excellent example of color deficiency. No two people's perceptions are the same. No two people share the same mind or even one identical emotion.
You may never percieve the colour green through your eyes, but you can understand that green is a colour, and its significance in life, it may not be ultimate but it is still knowledge. I may never understand high-level mathematics, but I do understand mathematics according to my level of consciousness, and that is still knowledge.
You, quite obviously, can. I said that you can never experience exactly what another person experiences.
You could never know that for sure.
It is no more important for me as it is for you to define terms, overall knowledge is subjective.
I didn't say it was more important for you than for me. I was stating that it is important, in fact necessary, to do so in order to have any meaningful conversation.
Are you being purposefully obtuse? I'm citing an example. I never even intimated that sight is the only source of knowledge.
There is no need for that kind of remark, let us act civilised.
How can we be sure (that what I see is what you see) ever is?
Define green so that a person who was blind from birth can 'know' it. The best you can give them is a definition built upon abstract concepts… this is not the same as experience.
Green is real, there is no need to give abstract concepts, you can tell them green is a colour, you can say the grass is green, and all other things, because it is real. If what you say is true, then there is no need to teach a blind man anything as he can’t see anything. The blind mans only defect is his sight, he still has other knowledge acquiring senses., and hopefully, still wants to learn about his environment.
Only due to your own experience of our shared reality. I gave you a mundane example to prove a point.
That’s one way I agree, but I would also say that it could be worked out.
Ah yes. Reality is an illusion. I forgot you believe the BG.
So you don’t understand the BG.
Knowledge can be understood but understanding does not imply "knowing" or experience. I can understand a description of what it feel like to bungee jump but until I've done it I don't "know", I haven't experienced it.
They are different stages of knowledge, but knowledge all the same.
You’ve done less than fail to convince me.
Why do you think I’m trying to convince you?
You've failed to put together a valid argument that proves your assertion.
According to you.
Which you just stated above; "I already percieve the Absolute Truth". Thank you for providing me with such a convenient example.
Since when does ‘perceive’ means ‘know.’
Anyone who states, absolutely, that God doesn't exist is presuming to know everything. These people are few and are guilty of faulty reasoning.
Almost everybody who perceives themselves as ‘atheist’ as at some stage during my time here stated that God does not exist.
According to history, it is usually the people who claim to know God that become violent and offensive.
Well this board is on to a historical breakthrough, congratulations.
Because I am a rational person. I don't stop questioning with my first assumption of truth.
Have you any idea how nonsensical that sounds.
Truth isn’t an assumption, it has to be actual, by its very nature, otherwise there is no such thing as truth.
We only need evidence to substantiate something we are not sure of, you are not sure as to the existence of God, I am. I am not trying to convince you of anything, because I know from my own experience that the chances of you being convinced by me are almost zero, especially in your current frame of mind.
If I didn't try to find evidence for things I thought were true I would still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny because at one time I did and I would never have questioned it. And I'm pretty sure they don't exist.
Funny that, I never believed in those two things at all. I played along with the santa thing because to a kid it is exciting, but believe, nah!
It was quite obvious to me that this big fat guy couldn’t fit down our chimeny.
You do the same thing.
You are really insulting aren’t you?
You’ve no idea what I do.
Unless, that is, you believe in everything you believed as a child.
Now that’s just plain silly.
Most people do, at least with certain subjects.
Have you asked most people?
As I've mentioned before; In my opinion, the BG is a bunch of poorly reasoned, self contradictory, transcendental philosophy supported only by it's own circular logic and appeal to authority that it is not able to verify.
I don’t think you understood it, because there is obviously more to it than.
Ah well your loss.
Love
Jan Ardena.
