Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00865)

Tom Robertson writes:
>>There is no difference.  Relativity provides for interrelation.  Anything 
>>that you define as real is your own relative viewpoint.  Because that 
>>viewpoint is relative, and therefore interrelated with reality, it is real.
>
>Taking this literally would mean that you see no difference between
>perception and reality.  

When you are taking something literally, are you taking it realisticly or 
perceptively?  You probably perceive that it is real.  Your perception would 
be a real perception.  Since your perception would define the objects (or 
subjects) you perceive, those definitions (your perceptions) would be real 
until you could prove to yourself, through furthur perceptions, that your 
former definition was false and unreal.  You once said that everything 
changes, except for what is real, however, you must have some perception which 
defines what you think is real.  If perceptions themselves are not real, and 
your perception is defining reality, then 1) how could something that 
constantly changes(perceptions) define something which never changes(reality), 
or 2) how could something something be real(never-changing) be defined, 
unarguably, by that which is only perceptive(ever-changing).  Your logic at 
this moment is giving me a wide berth.  In order to say that perceptions are 
unreal while defining and perceiving reality as unchangeable is a paradox.

>I have a perception of participating in the Theos list.  Assuming you have 
>the same perception, what would account for our similar perceptions, if not 
>the objective reality of our both participating on the list?  Could you 
>choose not to perceive that you are participating in the Theos list?  

The "objective reality" is not the absolute factor in my perception of 
participating on this list, however, you are correct in saying that it is a 
factor.  Taking your above example, my perception, generally, is that we are, 
in fact, participating on this list.  That is the reality.  I get a lot 
messages with no body.  That is also a reality. Perhaps you will agree that 
these things are real, or perhaps you won't, that is your choice and your 
perception.  But, since it is only your perception, is it unreal?  If that is 
true, how can you perceive and define reality?  It is all very contradictory.  

>If 100,000 people at a football game were all asked whether or not they 
>perceived a football game, and they all said yes, would you regard that as 
>pure coincidence, if you do not believe there is any reality to the football 
>game?  

I never said anything about objects not being a reality.  I said there was no 
difference between perception and reality, meaning one is just as real as the 
other.  You are defining reality (above) as a consensus.  A unified judgement. 
 The only thing you have to remember is that it takes perception to define 
that reality.

>What would the word "mistake" mean, if there is no difference between 
>perception and reality?  I define it as perception being different from 
>reality.  

Once again, that definition is defined by your perception.  One person may say 
that it is a mistake to eat meat, while another may say it is a mistake to eat 
only vegetables.  One perceives eating meat as being bad for the body, while 
the other perceives not eating meat to be bad for the economy.  They are both 
right.  Both perceptions are true.  But they directly contradict each other.

>The Objectivist says that perception and reality are identical, and they are 
>objective.  The Subjectivist says that perception and reality are 
>identical, and they are subjective.  The Theosophist says that perception 
>and reality are distinct but inseparable from each other, and that 
>perception is the result of the union of subject and object.  I take what I 
>have just called the Theosophical position.

The Theosophist says that perception and reality are distinct AND inseperable 
from each other, that perception is the result of the union of subject and 
object, and that reality is the expression of those perceptions.  The only 
distinction between the two is that one cannot exist without the other.  i.e. 
something cannot be expressed if is not perceived, and something cannot 
perceive without expressing.  I take what I have just called the Theosophical 
position.

That is my reality.
---
The Triaist