Has anyone an example of pure perception so that I can get a handle on what that means?

kennethamy,

Pure perception would be fairly rare,it is experience with no evaluation.If you have ever had,even briefly,the experience of loseing yourself to the outer world.Where subject and object for all intentions is one,that would be an example of pure experience.There must be others but nothing comes to me presently.Much of experience is said to be on a subconsious level,it should not be surprizeing if there is a little overflow,I think even experience on this level, could be said to be pure.

Have you an example of what you mean? If not, I wonder whether you mean anything by "pure perception".

kennethamy,

Pehaps your right,if pure experience doesn't do it for you,nothing will.

Well, it might if I could recognize it, and, of course, if there is such a thing to recognize. But you seem to be assuming there is such a thing to recognize, and that is exactly what is in question. I think that the explanation of my being unable to recognize it is that there is no such thing. And your inability to give an example of pure experience reinforces my belief that there is no such thing.

What I refer to as "pure perception" could be further defined as an approach to the world, or an appoach to nature or natural and physical environments that is completely without any preconceived conventional identities. So pure perception is a perception without language, (crude) intention, or without any formal context, a neutral relation, a kind of freedom from any artificial atmospheric disturbance or interferences. A kind of solitude, a divestment of meaning from the mind that flows out to the world, yet, at the same time a continuance of awareness. A deprivation of formal definition, BEING without pretense, BEING that is open to the world yet does not ask that the world BE anything. Kind of like a careful listening in which the subtle existence of reality speaks for itself and both it and the listener have become deeply entangled. It is, I think, what people mean when they say they have been communing with nature, where they generously allow the environment to naturally populate the contents of the inner-mind and share the identity as one.
[CENTER]-------------------[/CENTER]

"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Kennethamy,

Admittedly it seems kind of abstract, certainly there are other examples besides the one Pythagorean has layed out.Can you not think of a perception,sensation which you simply experienced without making an evaluation? In most people lives these are not common experiences which standout,to bad,life might be a lot more enjoyable.

No, I can't, since when I name the experience, I am classifying it.

Dreaming is pure perception perhaps, of whatever a dream is, which 'Ol Pythagorias already mentioned. Perhaps a breakdown on how or not this is true.

Dreams are built of images derived from our sensory world, but recombined in such a way that the objects themselves are often empty of object meaning and represent an expression of a particular form of energy conveyed through the generalized and abstracted aspect of dream objects.

With the vision derived from things which we recognize, and with the object representing something else, they become empty, devoid of literal meaning.

But without object , there can be no meaning to the conscious mind, as the conscious mind cannot waste energy, in pattern or biological construct, with the musing of things outside of the literal sensory world. (and I'll not justify or expound on that here to stay with the intended point)
To sum up that notion: Evolution took care of that, and presented the duality we now live, between survival(conscious mind) and gestalt reality.

Dreams serve to bridge the gap between the two, and then they themselves are not of the deep subconsciousness.. it is merely a vehicle that derives object from the conscious mind, with meaning from the subconscious mind.

Meaning cannot be perceived directly from the subconscious mind, as the conscious mind does not have the objects (limited nessessarily to the net volume that juxtaposition can bring.. perhaps infinite in a numerical sense, but then it only receeds infinitely from finite logical proposistion to an infinitely receeding horizon, like M.C. Eschers "Plane-filling" excercises.)

To experience pure perception, then, is merely where you place the perception on the map of the mind, wich ranges from the sub-conscious(ultimate meaning) to dream to the conscious(local meaning).

and to follow with a non-sequitur to avoid rambling on for the next century in an Eschering Plane Filling Manner:

You are always in pure perception.

"You are always in pure perception."

imprismed,

Perhaps we should consider this,perception is always pure accept for what distracts us from it.It would fellow that most of the time we are distracted, so if we can determine at which times we are least distracted we might be closer to the consciousness of pure perception.How about pain,at times when pain is intense it claims all,and you become pain,personal identity, the I,the sense of self, is pain and I don't think there is a running evaluation going on here.Indeed a pain reliever,is distraction.

What a triumph!

Now, I often take the New York Times Daily News Quizz.

And there are times when I come to a question and I don't know what the answer is. And then I look at the mutliple choices and then I know which one is correct but I don't know how I know that it is correct...but I know that it is correct...and it turns out that indeed it is correct!

It would appear a certain degree of exactitude can be achieved through the air. Non-local knowledge seems to imply to me that consciousness is a type of feeling and that the true meanings of things or things themselves, are not just ordered empircally, but are also super-ordered abstractly. And I think that evolution is leading us to higher abstractions in the information age.

The un-moveable obstacle in the road of man's evolution is a type of thornbush, it must catch fire in order for us to go further. There is a goal, but no way; but what we call a way is hesitation.

Baudrillard one wrote the following:

We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning. Unreality no longer resides in the dream or fantasy, or in the beyond, but in the real's hallucinatory resemblance to itself. ...Reality itself founders in hyperrealism, the meticulous reduplication of the real, preferably through another, reproductive medium, such as photography. From medium to medium, the real is volatilized, becoming an allegory of death. But it is also, in a sense, reinforced through its own destruction. It becomes reality for its own sake, the fetishism of the lost object: no longer the object of representation, but the ecstasy of denial and of its own ritual extermination: the hyperreal.

The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth-it is the truth, which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.

No one is anyone, one single immortal man is all men. Like Cornelius Agrippa, I am god, I am hero, I am philosopher, I am demon and I am world, which is a tedious way of saying that I do not exist.


It is venturesome to think that a coordination of words (philosophies are nothing more than that) can resemble the universe very much. It is also venturesome to think that of all these illustrious coordinations, one of them -- at least in an infinitesimal way -- does not resemble the universe a bit more than the others. --Borges

Information...exhausts itself in the staging of meaning...and leads not at all to a surfeit of innovation but to the very contrary, to total entropy. --Baudrillard

Pythagoras was once seen in two different cities on the same day!

Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a hollywood basement. --The Red Hot Chilly-Pepper


So if you find nothing in the corridors open the doors, if you find nothing behind these doors there are more floors, and if you find nothing up there, don't worry, just leap up another flight of stairs. As long as you don't stop climbing, the stairs won't end, under your climbing feet they will go on growing upwards.

K---

Why, if it is relative (whatever that means) can't it be true? Must truth be non-relative (whatever that means)? Anyway, one could also say that all truth, except for this one, is relative (whatever that means).

kennethamy,

Who is on first,what is on second,who is on third-NO WHO is on first.If we realize that there is no objective meaning but only on a subjective level,truth being a meaning,would mean necessarily that it would be relative to a subject.In essence we really are the same thing so it should hardly be wondered at that we share an extremely similar subjective experience of the physical world,of course truth is relative,everthing is relative to everything else, if it was not,it would not be.

But why, even if truth is relative, does that mean there is no truth, was my question. Why isn't there just relative truth? My second question was why couldn't a philosopher say that all truths are relative except for the truth that all truths are relative. Make just one exception.

Anyway, truth is relative to...what? For instance, what is the truth that Quito is the capital of Ecuador relative to? And whatever it is relative to, how does it make it somehow less of a truth? The truth that my printer is at my left hand is, I suppose, a relative truth, since "left" and "right" are relative terms, relative to the direction I am facing. But it is still true that the printer is at my left hand, isn't it? It certainly is not subjective. I don't just think it is to my left hand. It is to my left hand.

There is truth only for a subject,inessence without said subject,there is no object,all determinations, evaluations and truths ect...are but relations between a subject and its objects.A philosoper cannot say,all truths are relative except for the truth that all truths are relative,because meaning is dependent upon a subject/philospher without a subject there is no object there is nothing.If said philosopher was relative to nothing he would not exist.

"Anyway, truth is relative to...what? For instance, what is the truth that Quito is the capital of Ecuador relative to? And whatever it is relative to, how does it make it somehow less of a truth? The truth that my printer is at my left hand is, I suppose, a relative truth, since "left" and "right" are relative terms, relative to the direction I am facing. But it is still true that the printer is at my left hand, isn't it? It certainly is not subjective. I don't just think it is to my left hand. It is to my left hand.[/quote]

"It certainly is not subjective." Indeed it is it can be no other way.As subject you support the existence of a world,for without a subject for the world to relate to,there is nothing.Subject and object stand or fall together.There is no objective knowledge to consider, all knowledge is subjective.You might consider in this respect the physical world in which you live,to be the other half of your mind. Through being relative to this outer world you convert it to the information the mind runs upon and without which you would self-destruct.The Self is a very very big concept,part is subject part is object.

Boagie, will you please expound a little more on the subjects and objects. I think I understand it, but am not completely sure. Thanks.

Baloo,

I am unsure what it is you would like clearified.I believe the fact that subject and object cannot be separated is an indication of the relational nature of reality,seeing beyond the duality of apparent reality to the true oneness of reality.The self in this thinking cannot be limited to the boundaries of ones incaseing skin,for you are as much object as you are subject.Certainly we have indications of the defineing quality of the physcial world[object]and our effect on the physical world is more apparent today than it has ever been.It would seem obvious that the decline in the quality of the physical world can only mean a decline in the quality of humanity."Thou Art That," from the Upanishads is a rewarding meditation in this reguard.If I have not clearified anything here for you, please indicate were my focus might best do this.

Part 1

Truth...... :confused:

Truth is indeed relative to a subject. Whether this subject is regarded as an individual, earth collectively, or as God/the objective perceiver, a subject must exist in order for any truth to exist. I should also add that the truth varies with the subject.

now, when one uses the word truth, one needs to be clear in identifying the subject. To answer the question of whether or not a truths can be relatively true, the answer to this question depends on the subject. If I believe that philosophyforum.com is cool but you believe that it's not, both of these claims can be true, even as they contradict each other. But notice that in this case, the subject was the individual.

Suppose that we are now thinking as earth in a collective sense as one entity and as the subject. If one claims that oxygen is neccessary for life. This claim is true insofar as the subject is earth. But suppose that planet K(some undiscovered planet in the far reaches of the universe) has life which depends on another form of gas or perhaps they don't rely on any gases at all. If Planet K becomes the subject, then it is no longer true to assert the claim that oxygen is neccessary for life. We may actually assert the opposite that it is not neccessary. In this sense truth is still relative the subject.

But finally, if we examine God or the objective perceiver as the subject, this is when truth no longer becomes subjective but objective. This is when claim X can and claim ~X can no longer be true at the same time. The reason for this is because when God/the objective perceiver becomes the subject, there is no other subject for any claim to be relativized towards.

So in conclusion, when using the word truth, one should always be aware of the subject which that particular truth is relative towards. I grouped the individual, planet earth, and God as three distinct groups, but if you get comfortable enough, you can group the truth relative to the individual or planet earth as one, and the truth relative to God in another.

Remember, two claims can contradict each other and both be true insofar as there are two subjects. However, if there is only one subject, there can only be one truth.

Part 2

the suggestion that the claim "truth is relative" is somehow erred due to its self-refutating nature is well taken. But try to understand this belief in terms of subjects. If one claims that truth is relative, that is to reject the existence of objective truths. Therefore, the claim that truth is relative, is also a rejection of the existence of an objective perceiver. But the problem as many have pointed out is the objective nature of this claim(that truth is relative.) One would argue, isn't the claim that there are no objective truths an objective truth? this is where most people give up. But if you think a little more deeply into it, you can understand that there is in fact a way out.

If one claims that truth is relative, he/she is claiming that there is no objective perceiver and therefore no objective truth. If there are no objective truths, then the claim that there are no objective truths cease to become true or false. There is simply, no subject(the objective perceiver) for this truth to exist relative towards. So in conclusion, one ought not to read "truth is relative" as an objective truth, but simply as indicating that all truths are relative.

Anticipated responses:

Granted that all truths are relative, can Y claim that all truths are not relative and be speaking the truth. The answer is yes. The subject that this truth is relativized to is Y. The subject isn't the objective perceiver/God, because remember that granted that all truths are relative, there is no objective perceiver(and therefore objective truths).


Correct me if I'm wrong because at this hour, it is def a possibility

Love truth, Pardon Error,

Karma Police

"Truth is indeed relative to a subject. Whether this subject is regarded as an individual, earth collectively, or as God/the objective perceiver, a subject must exist in order for any truth to exist. I should also add that the truth varies with the subject."

Karmapolice,

Is not truth a evaluation of the relation between subject and object? The condition and/or process of each determineing that relational evaluation? It might then be asked what might the nature of the truth of relational processes be?

"now, when one uses the word truth, one needs to be clear in identifying the subject. To answer the question of whether or not a truths can be relatively true, the answer to this question depends on the subject. If I believe that philosophyforum.com is cool but you believe that it's not, both of these claims can be true, even as they contradict each other. But notice that in this case, the subject was the individual."

It is true there is some variablity in the subjective evaluation of the relational processes of subject and object,the evaluation of truth is dependent upon this variability of subject but also object.Hardness is relative to the object and the subjects ability to penetrate said object.The conditions of both determine said hardness.

"Suppose that we are now thinking as earth in a collective sense as one entity and as the subject. If one claims that oxygen is neccessary for life. This claim is true insofar as the subject is earth. But suppose that planet K(some undiscovered planet in the far reaches of the universe) has life which depends on another form of gas or perhaps they don't rely on any gases at all. If Planet K becomes the subject, then it is no longer true to assert the claim that oxygen is neccessary for life. We may actually assert the opposite that it is not neccessary. In this sense truth is still relative the subject."

Yes,subject and object are mutually interdependent.To speculate on another form of subject does not change the relationship of subject and object,but simply qualifies the subject.

"But finally, if we examine God or the objective perceiver as the subject, this is when truth no longer becomes subjective but objective. This is when claim X can and claim ~X can no longer be true at the same time. The reason for this is because when God/the objective perceiver becomes the subject, there is no other subject for any claim to be relativized towards."

There is no indication in the real world that there is any objective perceiver thus, until otherwise proven, all knowledge is subjective.The above is not philosophy but something of another taste.

"So in conclusion, when using the word truth, one should always be aware of the subject which that particular truth is relative towards. I grouped the individual, planet earth, and God as three distinct groups, but if you get comfortable enough, you can group the truth relative to the individual or planet earth as one, and the truth relative to God in another."

I group knowledge in the subject no matter its form.God is not a subject,entity or being which can be established any more than Zeus or unicorns can.This is for sunday school or a prayer meeting.

"Remember, two claims can contradict each other and both be true insofar as there are two subjects. However, if there is only one subject, there can only be one truth."

There is but one subject in the world and it stands at the centre of its own universe,it is the individual.There is however a commonality to our subjective experience.It has been said that reality to the individual is perception,reality to the group however is agreement.

Part 2

the suggestion that the claim "truth is relative" is somehow erred due to its self-refutating nature is well taken. But try to understand this belief in terms of subjects. If one claims that truth is relative, that is to reject the existence of objective truths. Therefore, the claim that truth is relative, is also a rejection of the existence of an objective perceiver. But the problem as many have pointed out is the objective nature of this claim(that truth is relative.) One would argue, isn't the claim that there are no objective truths an objective truth? this is where most people give up. But if you think a little more deeply into it, you can understand that there is in fact a way out.

Karma,there is in fact nothing which is not subjective.




If one claims that truth is relative, he/she is claiming that there is no objective perceiver and therefore no objective truth. If there are no objective truths, then the claim that there are no objective truths cease to become true or false. There is simply, no subject(the objective perceiver) for this truth to exist relative towards. So in conclusion, one ought not to read "truth is relative" as an objective truth, but simply as indicating that all truths are relative.

Again,there is no reason in the real world to assume an objective perceiver.So as far as our limited understanding can possiably manage all knowledge is subjective,in other words there is nothing which is not subjective.

"Anticipated responses:

Granted that all truths are relative, can Y claim that all truths are not relative and be speaking the truth. The answer is yes. The subject that this truth is relativized to is Y. The subject isn't the objective perceiver/God, because remember that granted that all truths are relative, there is no objective perceiver(and therefore objective truths)."

There is no objective truth, truth, knowledge,knowing and meaning,all subjective.:cool:

boagie :rolleyes:

I never meant to assert the existence(or non-existence) of an objective perceiver/God. I was merely trying to prove the point that "truth" depends on the subject. However, from your assertions that truth is subjective, i can draw that you have in fact rejected the existence of an objective perceiver/god. Your point is well taken that the existence of such a being can not be established. But as i'm sure you've heard this line of logic before, an objective perceiver's non-existence can not be established either. I am a skeptic who believes in all possibilities. I only have faith in reason. Therefore as a demonstration of my epistemic humility, I've considered both subjective and objective accounts(perhaps not as effectively as I'd hoped) as possibilities, never claiming one to be 'truer' over the other.

- Karma Police