Originally posted by karoly aczel
What if I dont feel it?

Or is it more real the more painful it is?

(just got up, not really thinking right yet)

If you don't feel what? The pain? Are you supposing there could be unfelt pains? Then why not suppose there could be free-floating pains, wandering around in the psychic aether, waiting to pounce on unsuspecting minds? I think these suppositions are what happens when "language goes on holiday". Just because a question can be formulated in English doesn't mean the question is sensical...

Originally posted by bbarr
If you don't feel what? The pain? Are you supposing there could be unfelt pains? Then why not suppose there could be free-floating pains, wandering around in the psychic aether, waiting to pounce on unsuspecting minds? I think these suppositions are what happens when "language goes on holiday". Just because a question can be formulated in English doesn't mean the question is sensical...

Yet still someone can find themselves grief stricken for no apparent reason.

The worst physical pain in my whole life was when I was about 12 and my leg just started hurting like hell. I was watching tv when it started and within seconds I was in tears. My mum drove me like 50kms to hospital, even though she could see that nothing had happened to me. Of course the pain went away upon arrival at hospital.

So we say "How was your day?", (and some of us mean it), because it's hard to know how one might feel from one moment to the next. Even if they're supposed to be having a great day.

Maybe my liguistical skills are on holiday compared to yours, but I assure you I am not puling your leg here.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yet still someone can find themselves grief stricken for no apparent reason.

The worst physical pain in my whole life was when I was about 12 and my leg just started hurting like hell. I was watching tv when it started and within seconds I was in tears. My mum drove me like 50kms to hospital, even though she could see that nothing had happened to me. cal skills are on holiday compared to yours, but I assure you I am not puling your leg here.

I guess I do not really understand where you're going. You started out asking something like "If P, then is it a fact that P?" or something along those lines. The answer is yes because if the supposition is that P is true, it follows that the proposition P picks out a fact. That seems straightforward to me.

But then you seem to indicate it may not be so straightforward, since the P in this case makes reference to subjective states (like the conscious state of pain)? But I tend to think it really is as straightforward as it seems, even in such cases as this. Pain can be subjective in the sense that it is a conscious state that presents to a particular subject and subjective in that it depends on the existence of minds; and yet it would still be a fact about the world that S is in pain, if it is true that S is in pain. Further, it would seem to me to be objectively the case, in the sense that the truth value of the proposition that S is in pain would not be dependent on any observer attitudes about the proposition (even if, again, the proposition references a subjective state of S). I guess I do not see any problems here.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I guess I do not really understand where you're going. You started out asking something like "If P, then is it a fact that P?" or something along those lines. The answer is yes because if the supposition is that P is true, it follows that the proposition P picks out a fact. That seems straightforward to me.

But then you seem to indicate it may not ...[text shortened]... the proposition references a subjective state of S). I guess I do not see any problems here.

I will have to read your post again before responding ,(or trying to respond properly), but I guess what I was trying to get at is what Huxley described as people seeking the "good,beautiful,true" in a (spiritual) "true" sense. (Seeing an objective reality and calling it "the Truth" where it really is just an observation of there and then, and even then subject to all manner of other linguistical problems presented by the simple terms-beautiful,good,true. There seems to be a paradox at work here)

So he's saying that there is no such thing as the beautiful-good-true in any absolute sense, and it is only an opinion based on their interpretation of reality.

It's bad to drop a rock on my foot, but is it really? Is it possible to attain absolute truth ,(in an experiential way), while still adhering to the universal laws that we must all work with.
(For you lay people gravity is a universal law on our planet (more or less), whereas the interpretation of the Bible,for example 😀, is only an opinion, no matter how sound an opinion. )

So I'm thinking, according to my interpretation of Zen and other literature, that what I perceive as bad is only bad for my ego and may actually be good for my "soul".


I'll give it some more thought, please excuse this blathering.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
If I drop a brick on my foot, feel the subsequent pain, is it a fact? Bbarr?

what is a fact?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
what is a fact?

Or put slightly differently... karoly? Is what a fact?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
what is a fact?

Does the rock hit my foot or does my foot hit the rock? Or something else?

I dunno, I'm just kinda trying to get into the spirit of this direct experience thing and was interested to see what others thought.
You could take this discussion to a few different places.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Does the rock hit my foot or does my foot hit the rock? Or something else?

I dunno, I'm just kinda trying to get into the spirit of this direct experience thing and was interested to see what others thought.
You could take this discussion to a few different places.

From a physics perspective, if you drop a rock on your foot, the rock accelerates down towards the Earth,
and the Earth (and your foot) accelerate up towards the rock...

Take that and relativity into account and you could legitimately claim both to be true.
However for most practical purposes it makes more sense to talk about the rock hitting your foot.

Originally posted by googlefudge
From a physics perspective, if you drop a rock on your foot, the rock accelerates down towards the Earth,
and the Earth (and your foot) accelerate up towards the rock...

Take that and relativity into account and you could legitimately claim both to be true.
However for most practical purposes it makes more sense to talk about the rock hitting your foot.

You know the song "Hurt" by Trent Reznor beautifully covered by Johnny Cash?
The first couple of lines... "I hurt myself today , to see if I still feel. Try to focus on the pain, the only thing thats real..."

Yes, we need more action, more rocks hitting feet all over the world!!

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Does the rock hit my foot or does my foot hit the rock? Or something else?

I dunno, I'm just kinda trying to get into the spirit of this direct experience thing and was interested to see what others thought.
You could take this discussion to a few different places.

the important distinction is that there is a collision between your foot and the brick which you experienced.

from your perspective, the experience has multiple sensations; feeling the brick in your hands, seeing the brick in your hands and feeling the brick collide with your foot, hearing the brick collide with your foot. perhaps even an elated anticipation of the coming impact during the time it took for the brick to travel towards your foot.

the experience will be more personal to you than to anyone else, compared to, perhaps an observer who only saw and heard the brick, or someone further away who only saw it. and least of all to us who will have heard about it after the fact and may even doubt your witness.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the important distinction is that there is a collision between your foot and the brick which you experienced.

from your perspective, the experience has multiple sensations; feeling the brick in your hands, seeing the brick in your hands and feeling the brick collide with your foot, hearing the brick collide with your foot. perhaps even an elated antic ...[text shortened]... least of all to us who will have heard about it after the fact and may even doubt your witness.

The important distinction happened before the "collision" ...

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the important distinction is that there is a collision between your foot and the brick which you experienced.

from your perspective, the experience has multiple sensations; feeling the brick in your hands, seeing the brick in your hands and feeling the brick collide with your foot, hearing the brick collide with your foot. perhaps even an elated antic ...[text shortened]... least of all to us who will have heard about it after the fact and may even doubt your witness.

Maybe you are awaking to the impact of the Holy Bible and Christ as
the brick and the rock.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe you are awaking to the impact of the Holy Bible and Christ as
the brick and the rock.

Prolly not, but at least you're thinking

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Prolly not, but at least you're thinking

Wishful thinking!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Wishful thinking!

Huh?
Your wishful thinking or mine? ...Actually dont worry about it, unless of course you could make some, however flimsy , arguement to support your claims, (which are also unclear for me at this time)