Chili

There is a whole league of them in the arts, but that was before the age of enlightenment.

A. Uiet bhor

Chili you worry me.

Do you chalk up are inability to "coherantly" respond in kind to your esoteric rhetoric as victory for your world view? Just curious.

Chili

Pardon me?

In case you wonder (as you must) they did not beatify William Woodsworth because he gives testimony on his own behalf that Rome will be Rome and does not need to be showcased to do that (or maybe there were just to darn many of them in those days and they were afraid the world was not big enough to contain all the books to write about these duplications of the original).

Awmte

Question: are we arguing for solipsism here? There is an objective reality in which the sound of a galloping is indeed the sound of a galloping horse, regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not.
From whence does this follow? Questions of the sun's motion have no connection to its light.

Hnefi

Holy nonsensical ramblings, batman!

I tried really hard to follow some of those sentences, but they're like moebius strips - they just twist and end up in attachment to themselves.

So you're saying that if an event occurs, there cannot be any testimony that this event occured because the event occured? What?? Is this what Xians mean when they refer to "talking in tongues"?

Huon

Let us not be mistaken. There is one William Wordsworth, a poet, of whom some words are worth some daffodils at Ullswater, and another Valium Woodsworth, less known, who was perhaps a lumberjack. Which one are you quoting ?

Gawen

I should've known better.....*sigh*

Chili

Yes there is, but the objective reality of a galloping horse is not yours until you have made the connection in your own mind. Afterwards we can talk about even when the horse is gone.

To 'see' the light of common day is not a matter of the sun's motion but of our perception of the sun rays when the sun is shining in our direction. These rays can be blocked by clouds, prison walls and also our mind where the transformation of sun rays into light must take place, ie. we look with our eyes but see with our mind just as listen with our ears but hear with our mind where we perceive what our senses are trying to tell us.

The message here is that our own mind can be the area where the sun 'no longer shines' which is the objectiveness of this reality . . . which is not ours until we have experienced it. It is based on this objectiveness that no rational account can be give for it except in the presentation of the words.

Hnefi

So you are arguing that although the sun did stop, a vast majority of the population of the Earth fooled itself into not recognizing this fact in some sort massive self-hypnosis? Are you serious?

Chili

No, I never even suggested that the sun moves for it to stop. I am saying that the vast majority of the people fail to understand that a perceptive mind is needed to translate sunrays into light which is used in this example to its extreme where no light is generated by the mind.

If I would say that sound is an illusion and that it does not exist if there is nobody around to hear it you might agree. This same is true with light which does not exist if there is no perceptive mind to 'see' it.