Reality and illusion

Author: Shed12

Posts

Total: 47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
The Truth is not contingent on knowledge of it.
How do you distinguish "The Truth" from "The Lie"?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Distinguishing has to do with knowledge, which is not the same thing as how things really are.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing against knowledge or to be even clearer true knowledge. I am saying that knowledge of truth is not the same thing as truth. 

Discernment is a gift from The Spirit of Truth. All good knowledge is knowledge of truth.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
So you're saying there is no systematic way (that you know of) to clearly distinguish "The Truth" from "The Lie".

You just "know it when you see it"?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I am not saying any such thing.

What I am actually saying isn't really registering with you, because you are talking about knowledge and knowing things which has very little to do with my point.

Truth is not contingent on knowledge. Truth is not the same thing as knowledge.

This is what you are saying.


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
I think this might be one of those "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" type issues.
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@Outplayz
If everything is illusion, then nothing is illusion. Given that, "You have no way to know if this reality is an illusion", then "this" is neither. But there are these ideas for whatever reason. If we only had "up", of course we wouldn't know if we were going up or down. But then, why even ask about it? Is it even possible to conceive? Does it make sense? If they're different by definition, maybe you could tell me what it is that makes them different.
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
There is not even "up" in a world with only one direction. In a world with only one direction, there is not even direction. There is just a world.
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Shed12
By definition one is suppose to be real and one is suppose to not be real. It really depends how you are looking at the definition. But if i am defining it the way i just did, one could say reality is real and an illusion is not real / false. If we don't go down rabbit holes, that is what seems to be going on presently. Going down a rabbit hole, i don't think you can prove this life isn't an illusion.

There are many platforms spiritual / philosophical that can take you either way. My personal spiritual belief, nondualism, has a pantheistic type of platform. What is real or reality is whatever consciousness is experiencing. When we die, we all become one consciousness but this source is everything and everyone. I would say that is the true reality. But then, this would also be a true reality and not much of an illusion. For, this source lives every experience that it already knows in a physical sense for everything to experience individually.  

It's like infinite sand. In that infinite sand everything exists. To experience and actualize something, one must create a sandcastle. But even if you don't that sandcastle exists in the sand. Reality would be the infinite sand, than another reality would be the manifestation of the things within the sand into the physical to experience. Therefore, this reality would be real and the reality of oneness would also be real. So if you ask me personally, i don't think anything is an illusion "not real." It's like having a dream or imagining and everything you imagine is living individually.


TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 315
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Outplayz
My personal spiritual belief, nondualism

When we die, we all become one consciousness

Doesn't that statement imply dualism? That there is something apart from our physical selves that reunites with every other individual manifestation of consciousness?
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12
I would suggest that - simply by living and interacting with the world -  we learn that when we perceive something usually there seems to be  something external that the perception closely corresponds to.   More rarely we experience a perception that doen't seem to correspond to anything external on further examination.

Through interaction with other humans we acquire language and learn to express our experience of the world by saying objects that correspond to our perceptions of them are labelled 'real' (and collectively constitute 'reality'); on the other hand perceptions that do not correspond to external objects are called 'illusions'.

I'd say that implies our intuition and language is based on a particular trichotomy of object, perception and the relatioship between them and we can neither experience nor express any other.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Truth is not contingent on knowledge.
I agree with you that truth and knowledge are not the same thing.

But what I'm asking you is, is "The Truth" knowable?

And if "The Truth" IS knowable, how do you identify "The Lie" or even the "NOT The Truth"?

And if "The Truth" is NOT knowable, what possible practical value is it to anyone?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
At the very least, you can know The Truth by contemplating the name/word itself and what it must mean.

Even then knowledge of The Truth =/= The Truth. Just being aware of that is a check against the whole, "oh I studied about that already, I already know, I have nothing more to learn". Because we are all wrong.


Keeping it real is certainly more applicable in a practical sense than simply fabricating vain imaginings and rolling with it. I'm sure you agree.




3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Because we are all wrong.
How can you know if anyone is "wrong" if you can't know "The Truth"?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
You are asking this, but I don't see you having trouble understanding how to use English.

So there has to be something in common there.
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@TwoMan
No bc we are already a part of it not separate. Just like the sand analogy. The sandcastle isn't separate from the infinite sand, it's just manifested into a physical form or shape. When it goes out, it goes back into the sand and becomes a part of the source again. Same thing with my belief. We are all a part of an infinite consciousness ("source"). When we are one with it we are also everything, "oneness" ... This source is everything going on right now, everything in the future, everything basically... but all simultaneously. Therefore, for what it already knows to experience, each piece needs to manifest and experience. The source is basically experiencing itself. This is my favorite spiritual platform, i like others too... but this one makes most sense to me for some reason.
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
-->
@keithprosser
Is correspondence necessary when it comes to perception? I mean, what could be different about our perception of an object and the object we perceive? If they are different, wouldn't any examination just be checking our initial perception with another perception?

we learn that when we perceive something usually there seems to be  something external that the perception closely corresponds to.
Can you give an example?

Through interaction with other humans we acquire language and learn to express our experience of the world by saying objects that correspond to our perceptions of them are labelled 'real' (and collectively constitute 'reality'); on the other hand perceptions that do not correspond to external objects are called 'illusions'.
Oh, I think I agree. 
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Shed12

we learn that when we perceive something usually there seems to be  something external that the perception closely corresponds to.
Can you give an example?

Perhaps it would be better to put it the other way around.... I'd rather have said that what we learn by experience is that some of our perceptions do not correspond to an externality.   By having experiences of particular examples of perceptions some of which seem to correspond and others seem not to correspond our minds construct 'abstract sets', viz 'reality' and 'illusions'.