The Reflection Paradox
The Reflection Paradox
1. There is a picture of a waterfall.
2. As a picture of a waterfall the picture is not a waterfall.
3. The picture, however, is dependent upon an existing waterfall.
4. As dependent upon the existing waterfall it cannot exist without the waterfall thus is connected to it.
5. As connected to the waterfall it is the waterfall as connection is equivocation.
6. The picture is both a waterfall and not a waterfall.
2. As a picture of a waterfall the picture is not a waterfall.
3. The picture, however, is dependent upon an existing waterfall.
4. As dependent upon the existing waterfall it cannot exist without the waterfall thus is connected to it.
5. As connected to the waterfall it is the waterfall as connection is equivocation.
6. The picture is both a waterfall and not a waterfall.
Re: The Reflection Paradox
1 and 2 are the same, they are defining the diference in the moment of using diference concepts. This is a definition.
3 is a premise, or an axiom.
4 is just say the 3 again.
5 is not a logic conclusion from the before points.
6 this is contradictory.
You are reasoning wrong. But anyways I say to you:
There isnt a picture. Just the waterfall.
So, there is no contradiction.
3 is a premise, or an axiom.
4 is just say the 3 again.
5 is not a logic conclusion from the before points.
6 this is contradictory.
You are reasoning wrong. But anyways I say to you:
There isnt a picture. Just the waterfall.
So, there is no contradiction.
Re: The Reflection Paradox
The picture is only coloured markings on a flat surface. There might be a connection between your perception of the picture and a real waterfall, but that only exists in your mind. The picture itself has no more connection with a watherfall than the wall it is hanging on does.
Re: The Reflection Paradox
The picture is also dependent upon a human being, print, color, camera, an ability to reach waterfall, and a species intelligent enough to create equipment picture, print, et cetera, so is the picture ALL of these things and NOT ALL of these things as well, to you?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:15 pm 1. There is a picture of a waterfall.
2. As a picture of a waterfall the picture is not a waterfall.
3. The picture, however, is dependent upon an existing waterfall.
4. As dependent upon the existing waterfall it cannot exist without the waterfall thus is connected to it.
5. As connected to the waterfall it is the waterfall as connection is equivocation.
6. The picture is both a waterfall and not a waterfall.
If no, then why not?
But if yes, then why?
Also, WHY does 'connection', itself, mean that one thing IS another thing?
You are connected to that third galaxy in distance to that billionth star in distance from where you are right now. So, how and why, EXACTLY does that make a person both that galaxy and not that galaxy?
Furthermore, what does saying one thing IS and IS NOT another thing actually achieve in Life?
Re: The Reflection Paradox
Rene Magritte addresses this issue with his famous painting, ce n'est pas une cascade.
Last edited by Harbal on Fri Sep 09, 2022 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Reflection Paradox
Interpretation among humans is mediated by active language as such and also by other media such as paintings, photography, theatre, novels, poetry, and pop music. Take away all communications and the 'waterfall' in the picture is about whether or not one may eat or wear the painted canvas.
Re: The Reflection Paradox
1a. The picture, as a picture, is not a waterfall.Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:42 amThe picture is also dependent upon a human being, print, color, camera, an ability to reach waterfall, and a species intelligent enough to create equipment picture, print, et cetera, so is the picture ALL of these things and NOT ALL of these things as well, to you?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:15 pm 1. There is a picture of a waterfall.
2. As a picture of a waterfall the picture is not a waterfall.
3. The picture, however, is dependent upon an existing waterfall.
4. As dependent upon the existing waterfall it cannot exist without the waterfall thus is connected to it.
5. As connected to the waterfall it is the waterfall as connection is equivocation.
6. The picture is both a waterfall and not a waterfall.
If no, then why not?
But if yes, then why?
Also, WHY does 'connection', itself, mean that one thing IS another thing?
You are connected to that third galaxy in distance to that billionth star in distance from where you are right now. So, how and why, EXACTLY does that make a person both that galaxy and not that galaxy?
Furthermore, what does saying one thing IS and IS NOT another thing actually achieve in Life?
1b. The picture of the waterfall derives its identity from the waterfall thus is connected to it, as connected it is the waterfall.
2. Connection means one thing is another in the respect a connection necessitates an absence of separation.
3. Saying a thing is and is not necessitates a movement beyond the senses, reality is beyond the senses. In these respects one does not conflict with the self or others in regards to what is perceived sensually as the senses lead to confusion.
Re: The Reflection Paradox
Take away communications and one would not even be able to eat or wear anything given communication is equivocable to "relationship" and eating/wearing things is a relationship. When we eat/wear things we are communicating with our surrounding environment. The basics of this communication is acceptance and rejection.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 11:15 am Interpretation among humans is mediated by active language as such and also by other media such as paintings, photography, theatre, novels, poetry, and pop music. Take away all communications and the 'waterfall' in the picture is about whether or not one may eat or wear the painted canvas.
Re: The Reflection Paradox
OBVIOUSLY, and OF COURSE.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:49 pm1a. The picture, as a picture, is not a waterfall.Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:42 amThe picture is also dependent upon a human being, print, color, camera, an ability to reach waterfall, and a species intelligent enough to create equipment picture, print, et cetera, so is the picture ALL of these things and NOT ALL of these things as well, to you?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:15 pm 1. There is a picture of a waterfall.
2. As a picture of a waterfall the picture is not a waterfall.
3. The picture, however, is dependent upon an existing waterfall.
4. As dependent upon the existing waterfall it cannot exist without the waterfall thus is connected to it.
5. As connected to the waterfall it is the waterfall as connection is equivocation.
6. The picture is both a waterfall and not a waterfall.
If no, then why not?
But if yes, then why?
Also, WHY does 'connection', itself, mean that one thing IS another thing?
You are connected to that third galaxy in distance to that billionth star in distance from where you are right now. So, how and why, EXACTLY does that make a person both that galaxy and not that galaxy?
Furthermore, what does saying one thing IS and IS NOT another thing actually achieve in Life?
EVERY 'picture' derives its identity from being A 'picture'.
A 'picture of A waterfall' derives its identity from 'you', human beings, who have made a LINK, between the TWO DIFFERENT 'things'.
In Truth there is NO 'other' 'thing'. There is ONLY One 'Thing', ONLY, or ALONE. 'Separation' occurs ONLY through conception and perception.
But this is NOT 'Reality'. This is just your OWN 'reality', which, OBVIOUSLY, is NOT True and NOT Correct, from the One and ONLY ULTIMATE perspective.
'Reality' is KNOWN, by the senses, and, UNDERSTOOD by the brain, working in collaboration with thee Mind, of course.
Senses, themselves, do NOT lead to confusion. It is the way one LOOKS AT and SEES 'things' is what leads to and causes confusion.
In fact it is the senses, themselves, which transfers 'Reality', Itself, EXACTLY how It IS, to the brain. From then on what happens is BECAUSE of 'you', "yourself". So, if there is ANY confusion ANYWHERE, then do NOT BLAME ANY thing else besides 'you', "yourself".
Re: The Reflection Paradox
But to eat or not to eat is largely instinctive whereas the meaning of a picture depends on communication about the artist's intention or other people's intentions. Same with any artefact.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:54 pmTake away communications and one would not even be able to eat or wear anything given communication is equivocable to "relationship" and eating/wearing things is a relationship. When we eat/wear things we are communicating with our surrounding environment. The basics of this communication is acceptance and rejection.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 11:15 am Interpretation among humans is mediated by active language as such and also by other media such as paintings, photography, theatre, novels, poetry, and pop music. Take away all communications and the 'waterfall' in the picture is about whether or not one may eat or wear the painted canvas.
Even with a naturally found object such as a real waterfall language and culture superimposes meanings such as beauty or utility on to instinctive appreciation of wetness, or drinkable. The cultural meaning of a real waterfall depends on the culture as a whole. for instance is the waterfall an occasion for porterage of the canoe, or is the waterfall an occasion for a Romantic poem.
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am
Re: The Reflection Paradox
The picture is an image of a waterfall; the waterfall is a waterfall. As others have already pointed out, in different and useful ways, there is no paradox.
Re: The Reflection Paradox
1. Reality exists through the repetition of form, this repetition of form (ex: horse and antelope both having four legs) necessitates many different meanings inside of one (ex: "legs" means many different organisms and even non-organisms).Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:01 amOBVIOUSLY, and OF COURSE.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:49 pm1a. The picture, as a picture, is not a waterfall.Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 10:42 am
The picture is also dependent upon a human being, print, color, camera, an ability to reach waterfall, and a species intelligent enough to create equipment picture, print, et cetera, so is the picture ALL of these things and NOT ALL of these things as well, to you?
If no, then why not?
But if yes, then why?
Also, WHY does 'connection', itself, mean that one thing IS another thing?
You are connected to that third galaxy in distance to that billionth star in distance from where you are right now. So, how and why, EXACTLY does that make a person both that galaxy and not that galaxy?
Furthermore, what does saying one thing IS and IS NOT another thing actually achieve in Life?EVERY 'picture' derives its identity from being A 'picture'.
A 'picture of A waterfall' derives its identity from 'you', human beings, who have made a LINK, between the TWO DIFFERENT 'things'.In Truth there is NO 'other' 'thing'. There is ONLY One 'Thing', ONLY, or ALONE. 'Separation' occurs ONLY through conception and perception.But this is NOT 'Reality'. This is just your OWN 'reality', which, OBVIOUSLY, is NOT True and NOT Correct, from the One and ONLY ULTIMATE perspective.
'Reality' is KNOWN, by the senses, and, UNDERSTOOD by the brain, working in collaboration with thee Mind, of course.
Senses, themselves, do NOT lead to confusion. It is the way one LOOKS AT and SEES 'things' is what leads to and causes confusion.
In fact it is the senses, themselves, which transfers 'Reality', Itself, EXACTLY how It IS, to the brain. From then on what happens is BECAUSE of 'you', "yourself". So, if there is ANY confusion ANYWHERE, then do NOT BLAME ANY thing else besides 'you', "yourself".
2. If seperation occurs only through conception and perception, and conception/perception are part of reality, then separation is part of reality.
3. The one and only perspective has no comparison otherwise it would not be "the one/only". As such, being without comparison, the one/only is absent of form because form requires comparison.
4. The senses continually change and as changing result in indefiniteness.
5. The "way one looks at and sees 'things'" is sensed by the mind. If the senses lead to confusion then the sensing of the senses results in confusion as well.
6. The "self", however confused or not-confused it is, is part of reality thus is a reality. As such contradictions, through the self, are legitimate.
Re: The Reflection Paradox
Instincts are how we communicate with our environment given they form our relationship with it.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 9:41 amBut to eat or not to eat is largely instinctive whereas the meaning of a picture depends on communication about the artist's intention or other people's intentions. Same with any artefact.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:54 pmTake away communications and one would not even be able to eat or wear anything given communication is equivocable to "relationship" and eating/wearing things is a relationship. When we eat/wear things we are communicating with our surrounding environment. The basics of this communication is acceptance and rejection.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 11:15 am Interpretation among humans is mediated by active language as such and also by other media such as paintings, photography, theatre, novels, poetry, and pop music. Take away all communications and the 'waterfall' in the picture is about whether or not one may eat or wear the painted canvas.
Even with a naturally found object such as a real waterfall language and culture superimposes meanings such as beauty or utility on to instinctive appreciation of wetness, or drinkable. The cultural meaning of a real waterfall depends on the culture as a whole. for instance is the waterfall an occasion for porterage of the canoe, or is the waterfall an occasion for a Romantic poem.
Re: The Reflection Paradox
The waterfall form replicates in both the picture and the actual waterfall, this replication of form is a connection.Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 9:33 am The picture is only coloured markings on a flat surface. There might be a connection between your perception of the picture and a real waterfall, but that only exists in your mind. The picture itself has no more connection with a watherfall than the wall it is hanging on does.
Re: The Reflection Paradox
Yet both connect through the underlying sharing of the waterfall form. Two distinct things connect through the underlying forms with which they share.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:54 pmThe picture is an image of a waterfall; the waterfall is a waterfall. As others have already pointed out, in different and useful ways, there is no paradox.