The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:19 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2026 9:30 pmSo what?

Already explained so what.

No, you didn't. What 'YOU THINK'... is NOT proof or reality for anyone else. For others, truth and reality are not as ridiculous as your claims. Rather, that's YOUR trip for YOU to live with. Enjoy!

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2026 5:14 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2026 11:19 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2026 9:30 pmSo what?

Already explained so what.

No, you didn't. What 'YOU THINK'... is NOT proof or reality for anyone else. For others, truth and reality are not as ridiculous as your claims. Rather, that's YOUR trip for YOU to live with. Enjoy!

You need to read more carefully.

You're such a relativist that you can't even recognize objectivity.

(continued)

Biologically limited humanity does not preclude objective humans.

Think of it this way. The right painting still must fit within an objective frame to be randomly witnessed, and yet the right painting can convey a subjective experience. Is that proof of the experience, or does that convey the actual experience?

Usually, memory must play a factor.
The memory of the receiver.
No recognition of God, means, no memory of God-experienced, in the receiver.
No fragrance of roses.

Extrapolate that into other art forms, and you begin to see the nature of writing ... and The Holy Bible, and why so many love it so.

Speaking of the ineffable does not constitute proof of God, but you can smell the fragrance of roses in a good painting if you know roses ... by any name.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2026 11:55 am Speaking of the ineffable does not constitute proof of God, but you can smell the fragrance of roses in a good painting if you know roses ... by any name.

The concept of a god is in the imagination of your mind. Speaking of the ineffable of your own mind is all imagination. Speaking as if your thoughts reflect something real that other people should be responsible for receiving transmissions from is absurd. Whatever transmissions you may think you are responsibly receiving is all part of your delusion, as evidenced by your constant stream of mangled bullshit.

If you are an example of someone who knows some kind of god or other reputable authority, you should be very concerned -- based on everything that you spew -- as to what you're actually receiving transmissions from. Trying to make it sound poetic does not transform it and convinces no one except (apparently) you.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2026 5:42 pm
The concept of a god is in the imagination of your mind. Speaking of the ineffable of your own mind is all imagination.

The concept of a Walker is in the imagination of your mind.

Why are you spitballing at yourself.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2026 5:14 amWhat 'YOU THINK'... is NOT proof or reality for anyone else.

Is what you think, proof of reality for someone else?

Walker wrote:Non-perceivers will not accept a perceiver's evidence of God, because one cannot apprehend for another.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2026 5:42 pmTrying to make it sound poetic ...

You've inspired a humble Doggerel Ditty, Lacy Wings ...

The Doggerel Ditty
A human can only be
As objective as a human can be

Relativity fogs perception’s apprehension
Apprehension is the mind sense capable
Of physics, math, and rules of nature.

Therefore ...
In the interval
Between the lightning and the eye
Between the tornado and the wind
Between Timber! and the crash
Between the touch ... and the pain

Objectivity dwells, measuring imagination.

There's gonna be thunder, maybe.
There's gonna be trouble from the funnel.
Big tree could hurt.
Was that a weapon or a ... finger?

Objectivity is the end point ... of Self-Enquiry.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 2:27 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2026 5:14 amWhat 'YOU THINK'... is NOT proof or reality for anyone else.

Is what you think, proof of reality for someone else?

Walker wrote:Non-perceivers will not accept a perceiver's evidence of God, because one cannot apprehend for another.

What a lovely paradox you've built for yourself, Lacewing.
Fortunately for you, I had already solved your self-induced puzzle.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 2:27 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2026 5:14 amWhat 'YOU THINK'... is NOT proof or reality for anyone else.

Is what you think, proof of reality for someone else?

Of course not.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 3:20 am What a lovely paradox you've built for yourself, Lacewing.
Fortunately for you, I had already solved your self-induced puzzle.

What are you imagining?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 4:09 am

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 3:20 am What a lovely paradox you've built for yourself, Lacewing.
Fortunately for you, I had already solved your self-induced puzzle.

What are you imagining?

That you might apprehend the objective meaning that the words convey.

Because when you do ... you're gonna feel silly.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 3:20 am Non-perceivers will not accept a perceiver's evidence of God, because one cannot apprehend for another.

We all perceive different things. You don't perceive what I do... so what? I don't perceive what you do, and I'm fine with that... are you?

There is no proof or evidence for perceptions that are not shared. What I notice, however, is how a person's behavior doesn't match what they claim. That seems worth questioning. And when they try to impose the existence of a god on everyone, that seems worth challenging too.

Many people claim a belief in a god as a way of trying to bolster their identity or position above/over others. They are holier than thou. That sort of shit (or desperation) is really obvious. Personally, I think everyone is a divine being and made of the same stuff, even though they're acting out in different ways. I also think it's possible to talk about this sort of divine nature (with like-minded people) without bringing in one particular god-idea or another. In my experience, the idea of gods just mucks it up. The whole notion is so contrived and mis-used. Surely, you can see that when you consider god-interpretations that are so different from your own?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2026 4:45 am

There’s an objective distinction between perception and apprehension.
Perception is of the body and apprehension is a mind portal which varies access to the totality of mind, from folk-to-folk.

Perception has been fairly well standardized into shared human, physical commonalities.
We likely physically perceive the same things, e.g., house, car, tree, etc.

However, folks apprehend differently.
Some are ruled by subjectivity until they can’t help but be objective,
because objectivity is the ticket to the big-picture tent.

The thing is, apprehension affects perception.

And objectively … "thing" is the root meaning of "reality."
(Jiddu Krishnamurti’s point in the earlier referenced missive is that thoughts are things.)