What is it that is so grand that I am claiming Boagie?

--edit--
I want to add that I cannot help another to understand when they are in denial. That is something only the other can do. The other might be able to do so with help of my words, but not without action of the other; the action of not denying, not defining; accepting.

Arjen,

Grand claim, saying you know the thing-in-itself, I would say is a grand claim, it is in essence saying you know what ultimate reality is. Kant and Schopenhauer would be most impressed.:eek: There is indeed resposibility on both individuals in conversation, when introducing new and or odd concepts perhaps terminology not everyone is use to, its going to take a little working out, give and take from both sides.

Boagie,

I am stating that everything is a part of the thing-in-itself. There is a difference between what I am saying and what you say I am saying. Apart from that I am also saying that the thing-in-itself posesses certain modalities; those modalities, looking at it from our point of view, contains all paradoxes man has ever known (<-- so to speak).

I do agree however that my thoughts need a lot of time to sink in. I think that this discussion is not the right angle for you to understand what I am saying. I think to understand that you would need to work out what human thought is (and how it functions) as well as work out some ontological problems you are facing. After that the question of paradoxes becomes relevant.

I hope that last remark does not sound presumptuous..

Arjen,

Well, it does sound a little pretentious, but that may be do to my own ignorance, hard to evaluate that which has not been delivered yet. I am in the dark as to what these paraboxes are about to teach me, what is your intended message in presenting them, or are they, self explanatory in someway. Sorry I do not mean to be rude, just do not enjoy being in the dark.

Boagie,

First of all: I do not think you ignorant. Perhaps in this matter, but I have looked up to you in past matters. Add to that that in the end I cannot be 100% sure it is as I think it is and my boasts are pretty silly. I do, however, think I am right. Which explains my comments.

Anyway, should we not open a topic on these precious paraboxes then?

p.s. I am speaking of paraboxes because the way we see reality creates paraboxes.

I am speaking of paraboxes because the way we see reality creates paraboxes.

There is no paradox with 'Reality/Truth'.

Ha!

You've got to be joking...

'truth = reality' is a false statement.
so 'truth ≈ reality' or even 'truth ≠ reality'.

What we have here is a paradox because 'truth ≠ reality' is - so to speak - 'true'.

Whatsmore, our perception and language deviate and pervert the reality they are conditioned by - so if I point at a tree and say 'tree', it could very easily be said that I pointed at everything and said 'word'.

Perception/language deviate from reality (translation into electrical impulse for example), so in effect what we perceive/say is deviant from the origin (the reality). Although we can say with 99% accuracy that what we perceive in our environment is what is in our environment, that 1% represents a mistruth, a lie.
The truth (perception/language) is not absolute, thus it is not true.

There is ALWAYS an error in perception, there is ALWAYS an error in linguistic translation of reality -> fact.
I'm not happy to have a lie for the truth, so I will continue to disprove it.

If all human action is motivated, how is that not then reaction rather than action. Certainly there is no such thing as human action, there is only human reaction.

Sorry, me again..
All 'action' being ('motivated' and therefore) a 'reaction' is only 'true' from certain perspectives. It is not a 'truth' to other perspectives. I think that presenting your perspective as true for all perspectives invites conflict that simply obfuscates the point. You can well support your perspective, and from that angle, I would have to call your 'claim' correct, within the context of your perspective. Ain't necessarily so from this one, though. Thats all I'm saying. Both our perspectives are therefore 'correct' (to some limited degree).

:)Very interesting post, I do not have much knowledge of Buddhist thought but it seems delightful. "Reaction in itself is a dicholtomy [cause and effect ] I doubt that at the orgin of existence we find a dichotomy." There is no cause and effect, there are but relational reactions, in such interactions the constitutions of the subjects involved are the essence of the transformations taking place, reality is an emergent quality.
The nature of all reality is that it is relational, cause and effect is part of an over all misrepresentation of reality, starting with the belief that there is such a thing as human action, the very term of which spells autonomy, independance and separation from the world at large, it is quite simply, delusional.

The nature of all reality is that it is relational, cause and effect is part of an over all misrepresentation of reality, starting with the belief that there is such a thing as human action, the very term of which spells autonomy, independance and separation from the world at large, it is quite simply, delusional.