Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00871)

The Triaist wrote:

>Tom Robertson writes:

>>The Triaist wrote:

>>>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.  

Perception is a subset of reality.


>Your perception would be a real perception.  

The perception is real, but it is only a perception of reality to a
unique degree.


>Since your perception would define the objects (or 
>subjects) you perceive, 

The objects exist, whether I perceive them or not.  Assuming
consciousness is universal, there is nothing that is not a subject,
but in being perceived, they play the role of objects, not of
subjects.


>those definitions (your perceptions) would be real 
>until you could prove to yourself, through furthur perceptions, that your 
>former definition was false and unreal.  

A "real perception" could mean at least two different things.  In that
perceptions exist as objects, they are real, but to the extent that
they are inaccurate, they are not.  Discoveries of reality do not
change reality.  If a perception has been discovered to be false, it
never was "real," in the sense of being accurate, even though it was
always "real," in the sense that it existed.  If I imagine unicorns on
the moon, that perception is real, but, unless there are unicorns on
the moon, it is inaccurate.


>You once said that everything changes, except for what is real, however, >you must have some perception which defines what you think is real.  

The word "reality' is being used in two different senses.  One means
that which does not change and the other means that which is
objective, including both what does not change and what does.  I am
using its latter sense in saying how I believe it relates to
perception.  


>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).  

Perception approximates reality, at best, and uncertainly.


>Your logic at this moment is giving me a wide berth.  

I didn't mean to.  I must have slipped.


>Taking your above example, my perception, generally, is that we are, 
>in fact, participating on this list.  That is the reality.  

That is your perception.  It might be reality.


>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.  

Do you mean by this that perceptions exist as objects themselves, and
are therefore real, or that perceptions accurately reflect reality,
and are therefore real?


>You are defining reality (above) as a consensus.  A unified judgement. 

Consensus and consistency are likely indicators of objective reality.


>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.  

They may both be wrong.


>Both perceptions are true.  But they directly contradict each other.

Truth can never contradict itself.  There is no necessary
incompatibility between eating meat being bad for a human body and its
being good for the economy.


>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.  

I infer from this last phrase that you mean that you believe that
reality depends on perception to exist.  I find that to be
contradictory.  If there was no objective reality to perceive,
independently of perception, perception could not exist.


>The only distinction between the two is that one cannot exist without the other. 

Perception cannot exist without there being both a subject and an
object, but if an object cannot exist independently of a subject,
there would be nothing to perceive.  Perception may define reality in
the only way that a subject can, but it does not make reality.