Your perspective is your reality

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you had read the opening post, the pemise will agree with you that your perspective is indeed true by your own definition and understanding.

Each to there own experience and perspective in life, which is true and valid.

Peace

That being the case...aren't you kind of .....



Just my perspective, of course.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

I'm sorry but I'm really not sure what you're trying to say to me, though I get the feeling you think I was trying to insult or criticize you, in which case I apologize. I sincerely did not mean to.

My only point is that there is a big difference between perspective and assumptions. Though one may assume based on one's perspective, or one's perspective may be based on one's assumptions, the two are not necessarily related, only if we ourselves choose to do so. It is possible to not make assumptions, and ensure one's perspective is based on reality.

I.e., I have no idea why you chose to hide your moniker from my sight... from my perspective... I only know that you did. No assumptions so no judgment.

Do you not agree that perspective and assumptions are two very different things?

Ok my apologies as well for misreading your initial post, must be the six.pack kicking in...LoL

Based on the information presented in the OP, assumption, is that which becomes part of the overall perspective.

However, the definition of perspective as given in the OP suggessts otherwise. And many dictionaries will have different definitions, and hence can be used to basically support any "point of view" or perspective.

To me if a particular perapective helps me understand life as I know it. Than that is what matters to me and hence gives me a window to understand life as I know it.

Hope, I was clear on my views. So based on your example, if someone hides behind a screen name, my understanding of that is that it is for online privacy and I also my not even consiser been curious about who is behind the avatar, if it has any importance to persue than maybe, if not I wouldn't.

Peace

a reply to: olaru12

Without much of a context provided how can I know what you mean by that , to be able to provide an explanation, so I am just happy with it being your perspective.

Peace

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012
a reply to: olaru12

Without much of a context provided how can I know what you mean by that , to be able to provide an explanation, so I am just happy with it being your perspective.

Peace

The emoticon was supposed to represent ...beating a dead horse. I agree that it's an obscure idiom/analogy and perhaps not applicable in the South Pacific, PNG.

Here in the uncivilized 48, it's supposed to mean that you should stop talking about the subject because it's useless and already been talked about enough. However I do suppose that this discussion might have some value in a sophomore philosophy academic setting. Come to think of it; it's perfect for ATS as well.

Never mind...

Apparently my perspective was influenced by my ego and not current reality. Uh oh, I don't want to think about this anymore...time to go down to "Okie Joes" and get hammered on cheap beer and watered down tequila.

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

Imagine a world without the advances in Science we have achieved, nobody would have guessed what was at the end of the horizon from the perspective of an average dark age citizen's view of the horizan back in those days.

I didn't say this but the average melon or orange farmer might have seen a melon in shadow and thought, hey, thats what the moon looks like. They see the disk of the sun and moon and the moon shaded (like a melon in firelight) and get it… maybe.

Plus lots of seafarers were around before Columbus that traversed the globe, they had to make maps. And then theres people climbing mountains and seeing the curve on the horizon…

But I agree, sadly many many more believed what they were told. Their lives depended on it. What awaited them for questioning Authority was the Inquisition.

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

Hope, I was clear on my views. So based on your example, if someone hides behind a screen name, my understanding of that is that it is for online privacy and I also my not even consiser been curious about who is behind the avatar, if it has any importance to persue than maybe, if not I wouldn't.

Now we're talking!

I wouldn't necessarily think that someone is "hiding" behind a screen name, but more like someone is protecting their privacy by using a screen name... nor would I need to assume anyone is doing anything wrong; more likely they are worried about the wrongs others would do unto them. I could use logical deduction to think of the most likely explanation, but I don't need to assume it's the only explanation, nor therefore the right explanation.

In my example specifically, it wasn't that you use a screen name, but that you hid your screen name. I'm not even sure you know your screen name is hidden from me. It may be visible to you depending on your settings, but I haven't checked out the settings to even know if that's possible!

The natural progression from there is to decide if and how it affects me and what (if anything) I can and/or should do about it. The only reason I noticed that your name was hidden was because it was difficult for me to follow the conversation because not just yours' but another poster's moniker was hidden. Other than for clarity's sake -- following the discussion and reasoning of each poster -- it really doesn't affect me at all. Your moniker doesn't tell me who you are, it doesn't make your posts any more or less credible or agreeable or wise or dumb. All I know for sure is that it makes it more difficult to follow the conversation, so it's then up to me to decide if it's worth the effort to do so, or if I just want to go away.

But I liked how your mind was thinking so I made the effort and decided to play!

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you had read the opening post, the pemise will agree with you that your perspective is indeed true by your own definition and understanding.

Each to there own experience and perspective in life, which is true and valid.

Peace

I did read the opening post.

My perspective is not true by my own understanding, but also by others who can verify if what I say is true or not. We can all get together and employ the same standards to arrive at a consensus. I cannot, however, assert something is true because I say it is. It needs to be open to general inquiry, or reason is stifled. Perspectives are invalid if they conform to arbitrary standards, such as "it makes me feel good" to believe such and such.

Solipsism is a philosophical theory which states that nothing can be verified except the existence of one’s own mind


“Everything past is unreal, everything future is unreal, everything imagined, absent, mental . . . is unreal. . . . Ultimately real is only the present moment of physical efficiency.”


Well, let’s imagine for a moment that we are merely brains in vats, with our perceptions being manipulated by aliens or evil scientists. How could we possibly know? And how could we disprove the possibility of this situation actually being the case for us right now? Brain-in-vat is a modern spin on Descartes’ Evil Demon problem; it makes the same point—that we can’t prove the existence of anything but our consciousness—but employs slightly different thought-experiments.


the multiverse, or parallel universe, theory. Parallel worlds—as many of us already know—are said to be very much like ours, with only minor (or in some cases, major) differences. According to the theory, there is an infinite number of these universes.

“phenomenalists”, believe that things only exist insofar as they are perceived. In other words, your cheese sandwich only exists so long as you are aware of its existence.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you had read the opening post, the pemise will agree with you that your perspective is indeed true by your own definition and understanding.

Each to there own experience and perspective in life, which is true and valid.

Peace

Perspectives are invalid if they conform to arbitrary standards, such as "it makes me feel good" to believe such and such.

I see your perspective, however what I do know is other people's perspective don't really matter unless they share and provide and alternative views to look at things.

But at the end of the day it's our own perspectives on others, and so it really doesn't matter to them by my own definition anyway.

However, what really matters to me is my state being and learning to navigate this life.

Peace

originally posted by: Layaly


“Everything past is unreal, everything future is unreal, everything imagined, absent, mental . . . is unreal. . . . Ultimately real is only the present moment of physical efficiency.”

Yes I totally agree with this line, that's the perspective that makes most sense to me. Everything does not matter, my own very existence is what really matters, as anything I perceive is done from the context of being in the moment.

Peace

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012
a reply to: olaru12

Without much of a context provided how can I know what you mean by that , to be able to provide an explanation, so I am just happy with it being your perspective.

Peace

The emoticon was supposed to represent ...beating a dead horse. I agree that it's an obscure idiom/analogy and perhaps not applicable in the South Pacific, PNG.

Yes, I know what beating a dead horse means, your right idiom is not applicable here.

However I do suppose that this discussion might have some value in a sophomore philosophy academic setting. Come to think of it; it's perfect for ATS as well.

Never mind...

Good, you basically answered yourself.

[qoute]
Apparently my perspective was influenced by my ego and not current reality. Uh oh, I don't want to think about this anymore...time to go down to "Okie Joes" and get hammered on cheap beer and watered down tequila.

I think it is a brilliant idea to head down to "Okie Joes"

Peace

a reply to: Boadicea

I am not sure but, but if I understand what you are saying, because you can't follow the train of thought due to the hidden screen name and all.

Of course you are entitled to your perspective, but that implies the classic "judging by the book by it's cover" approach.

Hence, what you hold true for yourself is what that really maters to you, and the same applies me.

Peace

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

I am not sure but, but if I understand what you are saying, because you can't follow the train of thought due to the hidden screen name and all.

Of course you are entitled to your perspective, but that implies the classic "judging by the book by it's cover" approach.

I'm obviously not making myself very clear at all...

You are assuming that I'm "judging a book by its cover" if I need to know who is commenting. No. Not all comments are complete sentences so to speak. Replies do not always contain enough information to make clear what is being replied to. Sometimes it can be applied to more than one previous comment. Just like your comment above, you did not quote me, you did not address any specific comment... but you are obviously replying to something said earlier.

What could I possibly "judge" from a forum moniker anyway? About as much as avatars... which I have turned off. I am not judging anything or making any assumptions... my perspective comprises the facts that I know. I have no idea why you did what you did, I don't care, I only know that you did. That and that alone is my perspective.