It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Aphorism
What about what you don't perceive or don't know? Obviously they exist outside of your perception.
Ad hominum. A common technique for those who lack argument.
You never said everything you perceive is in your perception. You said everything that exists is within perception. Big big difference. Why are you backtracking?
No, it is proof that you are perceiving.
You never said "knowing it exists". You said "everything exists in perception". Seriously, simple grammar. What you should have said instead of making no sense was "we can only know what we perceive". That makes sense.
What about what you don't perceive or don't know? Obviously they exist outside of your perception.
That's what I'm here for. I'm glad I could be of service.
How could you possibly know? Is it obvious that they exist outside your perception? Or is it an assumption?
Floydshayvious
I think that would be like a bottomless pit - kind of like science.
The more we find the more we wonder.
It may not have an end.
But we do.
Aphorism
I am not the one assuming that I've perceived everything and that there is nothing left to perceive. I am fairly certain I will witness things and events I have never seen before. And you?
Itisnowagain
How could you possibly know? Is it obvious that they exist outside your perception? Or is it an assumption?
You are avoiding the questions - as usual.
Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain
You are avoiding the questions - as usual.
Since whatever I say is the wrong answer, perhaps you can just tell me the answer, and how it is you know and don't assume that you are correct.
The perceiver and the perceived are not two things.
The perceiver and the perceived are not two things.
Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain
The perceiver and the perceived are not two things.
How so? This is the part I cannot understand.
Arthur Shopenhauer said we "lose ourselves in the object of perception so that we are no longer able to separate the perceiver from the perception but the two have become one since the entire consciousness is filled and occupied by a single image of perception."
pegasus.cc.ucf.edu...
When we "lose ourselves in the object of perception so that we are no longer able to separate the perceiver from the perception but the two have become one since the entire consciousness is filled and occupied by a single image of perception. (WR I, 118-119). We cease to be aware of ourselves as spatio-temporal objects amidst other s-t objects, and so cease to view individual objects as objects of our will. We become (like for Kant) disinterested. The subjectivity of ordinary consciousness disappears – perception becomes "objective" – and pain disappears. If my consciousness is absorbed in the object of perception, I can't be aware of a disjunction between will and object, nor can the will be objectless. This is aesthetic pleasure. Example: if you are completely absorbed in an aesthetic object, either in creating or in experiencing, you aren't thinking of you as creating it or viewing it, but you enter into its world. Music can "carry you away", and you become "ecstatic", out of yourself. But that "out of" does not suggest that you are in another self, but in no-self. The aesthetic state is a glimpse of the permanent solution to the problem of pain.