/lit/ - Literature

>>11116826
>I think that through sense perception you arrive at the conclusion that there can not exist only sense perception.
I'm not saying there's only sense perception.

>Logical and continuous comprehension of sense perception is an implication of more than sense perception is it not?
Yes, if we're talking about sense perception as our basic waking sense experience.

However
>How does a reality purely composed of perceptions account for the order and continuity of these perceptions?
If you're implying there's a distinct realm of existence which is need for our reality function, call it God if you would, I don't think it's necessarily the case.

Think of a road with holes in it: would you say the holes are due to a different, non-material reality? Or is it the structure of the road itself, that is unfolding in a different way? I think this simile is applicable not only to space, but to time and consciousness as well. It's not that other consciousnesses don't exist but rather you're on the highest (or lowest) point of a consciousness curve of sorts. When consciousnesses go out, it's not unlike flames or waves disappearing; I don't think you need to propose a second, imperceptible reality to explain consciousness satisfactorily. It's all a matter of the patterns and structure of existence.

That's also why I'm not saying there's only sense perception or there's only thought, nor that those are completely separate and easily discriminable. You eventually arrive at a point in which things are pure pattern, regardless of whether it's thought or sense, there's no basic atom that you can "cling to" and work from without the rest of the universe, like a heart is a useless collection of muscle without a body.

Of course, I have some doubts on this positions, but this post is already pretty long.

>if you deny the ability to objectively state truth your own denial of this must be an objectively true statement, it's self refuting.
Check out the article I posted then, it's dealing with that and pretty interesting.

>>10172279
Because Buddhism has already shreded everything I thought (and didn't know I thought) true and replaced it with something much better. And I don't even think I've gotten any proper, first-person insight yet. It already looks like a wonderful peak from here where I've just barely started to climb.

Well, there's a lot more, but that's the gist of it.

>>8612756
>I think of a "complete" human mind as one that functions with all the necessary capacities for experience of the physical world
My point is that the physical world is one of those requirements. That the form of the world implies that of the mind as much as viceversa. As such, the mind is can't be said to the "whole of the world", because to go to such extremes would be to render the statement pointless, a non-statement. Therefore, as it's not total, the mind is necessarily partial: that is to say that it always perceives only a part of the whole, and this gets proven when you go back or forwards into time--and it is only though the factor of Time that this happens. This is why it isn't "presently" complete.

This of course has physical ramifications. Certain conditions will affect the mind like they do the body. So when you say "all the necessary capacities for experience of the physical world", what are those capabilities? How do you know that you know all of them? If we're talking about private experience (in the political sense), then of course, non-private experience is a requirement of it, it is its boundary--and here we see how deep the ramifications of our history go into deeper thought: the concepts of ownership, of personhood, individuality, are very specific ones, developped through religious, artistic, economic relations. We only need to change the metaphores with which we think to shake the whole foundation.

Conditioned. Thoughly conditioned.

>a real thing exists even when it is not separated in thought from the rest of reality
Could you reformulate this? I can't finish grasping it.

>No thinking without a thinker - the former being a modification, a state, a determination, of the latter.
I disagree that thought is a modification of the thinker. The arise together. To suppose otherwise is to bring about a third party that mativates the thinker, or to go back into the infinite retraction of the prime mover.

>If there were only a single, individual mind, with nothing apart from it with which it could relate, then I don't see how this mind could imagine or think or be conscious in any way.
Precisely by generation something it lacks, then something that is complete can be conceived.