AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:42 pm
Now, are you able to define the word 'reality' with that definition EVER being about 'reality', itself?
Sure, I can provide such a definition (even a few different ones, depending on the words and concepts employed), but again, it will only be a definition, a pointer towards reality, it will be a statement "about reality", but, just like a signpost reading "New York"... the sign is just a word/concept, it is not the city.
So, in essence, what you have been arguing for is that one thing is not another thing, correct?
Also, to me this appears to completely contradict your other:
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
Furthermore, one has to bear in mind, that
any statement or assumption we make (or belief that we entertain about something)
is ever only about a conceptual interpretation, but
never about reality itself.
How do you explain that one time you write and say;
Any statement is never about reality itself. BUT, another time you write and say;
A definition will be a statement about reality.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:42 pm
AlexW wrote:
Saying that "The monkey has eaten the banana" is a statement about an interpretation of something that has been directly experienced - but we have to keep in mind that we never actually directly experience an "I" seeing a "monkey" eat a "banana", but all we actually ever directly experience visually is color (which is also a concept, but there is no way to verbally further reduce the direct experience of "seeing").
If this is YOUR "seeing", and you want to BELIEVE 'it' is true, then so be it. But, no matter what you say, this, by YOUR OWN LOGIC, will NEVER be about 'reality', itself. Which means that EVERY thing you say and tell us is NOT about 'reality', itself. Which, infers that EVERY thing you say and tell us is NOT the true, or just plain old 'False'.
Of course this is how I see it, and it is also what I believe/assume to be true.
Of course it is what you believe/assume to be true. But my point was and still is that what you believe/assume could NEVER be about reality, thus NOR thee ACTUAL of things, correct?
Oh, and by the way, when, and IF, 'you' ever come to discover, or learn, and understand who and what this 'I' is that does SEE, then 'you' will also SEE and UNDERSTAND just how SIMPLE and EASY it REALLY IS to DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE this 'I'.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
What has been said is a statement about reality, but it is only a description/interpretation, and it is a statement that uses a dualistic "tool" called language (which is an expression of conceptual thought) which can only talk about reality using concepts. Concepts describe things, they "conjure up" a relativistic universe of separate objects existing independently of each other, but reality (meaning: this direct experience happening here/now) actually doesn't conform to this relativistic model.
If 'you' can ONLY "conjure up a relativistic universe of separate objects existing independently of each other, then this phenomena can be, again, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY explained AND understood, FULLY, and IRREFUTABLY by the way. Unless, OF COURSE, you believe/assume that there is nothing more than could be learned and understood.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
If you investigate your own direct experience you can actually find this out for yourself - which is, by the way, how I came to the conclusion that every description one can provide about reality is actually not it - it is a pointer towards an apparent part of it, but in truth (which is simply: direct experience itself) there are no such separate parts at all.
BUT just like you can 'point to' "new york", you can also go there, understand 'it', and then explain 'it' to "others" who have NOT YET gone there/directly experienced 'it'. This, however, can only happen if 'you' directly experience as 'it' REALLY IS, and NOT how 'you' think/believe/assume 'it' is.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
Now, please tell me: if reality/direct experience is not made of separate things, then how could anyone express something that is absolutely true about this reality using a tool (language) which is all about duality and separation?
1. To me, 'reality' is NOT 'direct experience', like how you imply or believe it is.
2. How ANY one could just express some thing that is ABSOLUTELY True about Reality, Itself, using the tool of language is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY thing to do. If, however, "others" have evolved enough to be OPEN ENOUGH to HEARING and SEEING this is just another matter.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
I think this is actually not possible.
On deeper reflection you might actually find out and see that you actually BELIEVE this, instead.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
This doesn't mean that it is impossible to state something about an interpretation of reality which might be considered true or false - but the truth content of the statement will always depend on, and be measured within, the conceptual framework that is employed to describe it.
AND, the 'conceptual framework' is either 'relatively' or 'objectively'.
And, when this is LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED, then this can be UNDERSTOOD.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:42 pm
If you even think assumption/facts mean the same thing, then I suggest looking in an ENGLISH dictionary.
Also, by your OWN LOGIC here, you will HAVE TO ADMIT, that YOUR CLAIM that, "a baby ONLY sees shapes of color", is just an ASSUMPTION, which can NEVER state something absolutely true about reality itself.
Now, are you going to ADMIT to this?
Of course I understand the difference between assumptions and facts.
Well it did NOT appear this way to me when you wrote;
these assumptions/facts can never state something absolutely true about reality itself.
This is because, to me, 'facts' are absolutely, and irrefutably true. Whereas 'assumptions' are just a guess about what is or might be true.
So, I would NEVER write assumption/facts as though they are synonymous or the one and the same thing.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
The point I was trying to make, and which you apparently missed, is that an assumption, as well as a fact, is always based and rooted in the conceptual framework one employs to describe reality (whatever is directly experienced).
But if a 'fact' is a thing that is known or proved to be true, then that thing has to be in relation to, or rooted in, 'reality', itself.
While, an 'assumption' is jut a guess, which could be based and rooted in, well ANY thing really.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
If you think you can express a fact without making use of the conceptual/conventional framework as well as the language that is used to express it, then please let me know.
I will. BUT, considering I would NOT think a thing like that, there is NOTHING to let you know about here.
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
I think it is not possible to do so, and, as a result, even "facts" - expressed in conceptual thought and language - are not the actual reality of direct experience but only a description/interpretation of reality -
If 'facts' are only a description/interpretation of reality but are not the actual reality, then what are 'facts' based on, or rooted in, EXACTLY, if not 'reality', itself?
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
as such they are not absolutely true (as I see it: only reality is absolutely true)
What is 'reality', to you?
Also, if a 'fact' is a thing that is proved true, but a 'fact' is not absolutely true, to you, then, how do you define the difference between 'absolutely true' and 'proved true'?
Or, do you defined 'fact' differently?
If yes, then how do you define the word 'fact'?
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 am
but only have a certain truth content when expressed within a certain conceptual framework (something one has learned since early childhood, but that wasn't there before one was able to name and talk about the "objects of the world").
Now, back to the baby: Does it see only color?
Of course it sees only color. Do you think you see something else?
The seeing itself hasn't changed since you were young. Well, maybe its less sharp and focussed depending how old you are, but you still only see color.
You might think that you see separate things, but if you actually investigate, you will find that "seeing" itself is never about things... there is no separation within this "field of color".
"Seeing" actually is "color" - just like hearing is sound, there is nothing in between the "two". They are one and the same, they are just different words, different concepts used differently so they work within our conventional way of communication.
So, do I admit that "a baby ONLY sees shapes of color" is just an assumption?
Sure, it is an assumption based on investigating my own direct experience. It is not an absolute truth - it is only a description pointing to direct experience expressed in as simple terms as possible when using the only tool we have to actually describe anything: this tool is conceptual thought and its verbal expression: language.
My point in getting you to REAFFIRM that a baby ONLY sees shapes of color was not only to get you to SHOW that that is just an ASSUMPTION, from the conceptual framework of just what that body has experienced, ONLY, and within the length of existence of that body ONLY, which is NOTHING REALLY, relatively speaking, but also to SHOW that you would NOT admit that that ASSUMPTION of "yours" could NEVER state absolutely ANY thing that is absolutely true about, or in regards to, 'reality', itself.
In other words, there is NOTHING you could say that would ever be close to being absolutely true about reality itself, correct?
Will you admit that you could NEVER say ANY thing absolutely true about reality, itself?