how do we get two from one? It is the same way line turns into a wave. A wave has polarity. A top and a bottom. The line has to be changed.

Hi,

What Confucius thought doesn't really matter, since he had no armies. I don't even know what he actually said. However, what Confucianism suggests (hierarchy and worship of those higher in the hierarchy) was a largess for the Emperors, bureaucrats, senior citizens, etc - anyone who can benefit from being up high on the hierarchy. Emperors in the centuries following the death of Confucius, adored him Anyone can make a case for being at the top of the hierarchy, and they do in order to reap the rewards. The people at the bottom, however, have to pay for it.

I personally enjoy watching people vie for King of the Hill.


Rich

What Confucius thought doesn't really matter, since he had no armies.

Neither did Lao Tzu, whose Dao and whose symbols you occasionally mention -- in fact he probably did not exist.

For that matter, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Jesus all lacked armies too.

Does what they thought matter?

But Nero had an army... Genghis had an army... Tamerlane and Attila and Alaric all had armies...

"I think, therefore I am". Now I am practically certain that I exist as more than a mere abstraction of reality. However, I could be illusory, and so I can only be absolutely certain of one synthetic proposition, and that is that something exists.

I wonder who would be having the illusion that you exist.

Neither did Lao Tzu, whose Dao and whose symbols you occasionally mention -- in fact he probably did not exist.

For that matter, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Jesus all lacked armies too.

Does what they thought matter?

But Nero had an army... Genghis had an army... Tamerlane and Attila and Alaric all had armies...

"I think, therefore I am". Now I am practically certain that I exist as more than a mere abstraction of reality. However, I could be illusory, and so I can only be absolutely certain of one synthetic proposition, and that is that something exists.

Hi,

I am never sure why people reference anything as an illusion. It seems a bit dismissive, as "I don't want to deal with it, it is only an illusion." Now the Real Thing is this. So? This is real, this is not. I don't know the difference. I experience them both.

Well, if it is an illusion that only one person has, then it is difficult to discuss. But it is an illusion that many people have then whatever it is, it can be discussed in the same fashion that anything can be discussed. People can call it anything they want. They can call it it bibbity bobbity boo, if they want.

An experience by any other name is still some experience. Personally, I can't tell real from not real, so I think if it as all the same.

Rich

An illusion is a distorted perception of reality. If I take LSD, and I see scooby doo walking down the street, I am experiencing an illusion of reality due to the abnormal changes in my brain chemistry. It is a mind-dependent event, which means that it isn't actually real.

I have really no idea what any of them thought.

We can even debate what Descarte's statement, I think Therefore I am, means

I have convinced myself that there is nothing in the world - no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Doesn't it follow that I don't exist? No, surely I must exist if it's me who is convinced of something. But there is a deceiver, supremely powerful and cunning whose aim is to see that I am always deceived. But surely I exist, if I am deceived. Let him deceive me all he can, he will never make it the case that I am nothing while I think that I am something. Thus having fully weighed every consideration, I must finally conclude that the statement "I am, I exist" must be true whenever I state it or mentally consider it.

In the cases of Plato and Aristotle we have their actual writings. In the case of Socrates and Jesus, we have a "tradition" of their thoughts canonized, and whether it represents the historical figures or not doesn't really matter because we'll never know and it won't change their influence.

Descartes didn't make that statement in isolation, though. It's abundantly clear what he meant when you read the remainder of his meditations:

Yes, if a single person has an experience that other people do not have, by consensus the others say that he is having an illusion. However, if some people begin to share in the illusion, it is called a religious experience. If even more share the experience, it is called Reality.

However, whatever other people call it, it still is an experience for the person that is having it, and it is as much of an illusion as a dream. Now I don't know how to distinguish a dream from an illusion. I do know that a dream in sleep is different from a feeling of being awake, but when I am asleep it the only thing that is real.

I think to try to distinguish what is illusion based upon one's on subjective view is tricky. One has to begin by suggesting that his/her view is reality and will be the judge of what is an illusion.

Rich

A dream is an illusion of reality. It isn't very hard to distinguish what is real from what is ideal if you give it a try. It's all about distinguishing the internal from the external.

When I am dreaming, that is the only thing that is real to me. When I am awake, I do not even know whether the dream happened, was real, or whatever.

Lots of people claim to see things I do not. Artists for example. Mathematicians. Are they illusions because I do not see what they see?

As for External and Internal, can you give me a definition. But beware, unless you can give me one that does not require senses, then everything becomes internal - unless you think you can sense without senses and the mind.

Rich

You know that the dream isn't real when you wake up and realize that it was a dream.

What do artists and mathematicians claim to see that you don't? We're not talking about abstract thought.

From my point of view, when I wake up I know something is much different, but I have no idea what happened in that moment that I was asleep. Same mind, different feelings. If you can explain how and what happened, then I am all ears.



I wouldn't even know where to begin. Most of what mathematicians talk about and exchange between each other is far beyond my comprehension. Artists see colors, shapes, images, that I have no idea of, but they are quite comfortable. Right now, I see shadows. Do you see them? Are they illusions of mine or are they real. How do you know which is which? You see what you see. If I don't see what you see, who is imagining and who is seeing what is "real".

As for labeling philosophies, I am not into that. I have my own way of viewing the world, and so far no one that I have found has the same viewpoint. Maybe because no one else is me.

Rich

Your philosophy can be summed up in the labels of idealism and perspectivism.

Dreamscan be explained very easily. It's not this mystery that you're making it out to be.

I don't see the shadows that you see because I am not in the same location that you are in. A shadow is a very common phenomenon, and it can be explained very easily in physical terms. Sometimes we make a mystery mysterious.

From my point of view, when I wake up I know something is much different, but I have no idea what happened in that moment that I was asleep. Same mind, different feelings. If you can explain how and what happened, then I am all ears.

(bold and underline mine)

If you are willing to hang out a little, I'll explain what is happening, in the several degrees of assurance.