Oct 11
2007
Not what you thought you think you did not see
Sindee Clark –
Perception is the activity which creates meaning. Nothing is real unless it is perceived. But what is perceived is not necessarily real.
God can not exist because “God” has no form. Perception of a verb does not a noun define. Imperception of a noun does not a verb dismiss.
Perception is key.
Science can only prove that which “is” and what “is” can only be determined by what “is” perceived. Until the linguists move into quantum-linguistics, words will continue to hold captive the human mind and imagination.
A statement such as “God does not exist” should be able to peacefully co-exist with the statement “There is a God.” However the definition of “exist” and of “is” preclude this as a seeming impossibility.
Language colours our perceptions. If God exists then God is perceivable and what is not perceived does not exist. Either someone is blind or the other is seeing things.
And at least the one seeing things is being perceptive.
Two statements; One of which is a demand.
Nothing is Real
&
Tell me what it means.
No Responses to “Not what you thought you think you did not see”
Some thought on this interesting line of thinking:
Although it seems to me to be intuitively correct, why is something not real unless it is perceived. That which is not perceived is not directly known, that is obvious. However, are things that have passed out of our perception temporarily then not real until they are once again perceived?
Another thought: If we are to say that nothing is real unless it is perceived, then why that sometimes we perceive things that are not real? If we perceive them, are they not real to us, just not in the way that “common sense” would define things?
Also, is the implication of the second paragraph “God is a verb”? Is this why he is not directly perceptible? And if he is a verb, how can God come to bear any sort of action? If God is not an entity by an action, how then can God be said to do or think anything?
Lastly, the most important point raised here is that it is language that is the major stumbling block to any sort of discourse on God. It is not possible for anybody to know what a person means by way of saying “I believe God exists”, or the converse, without an explicit delineation of the terms and an exploration of their meaning. In such a metaphysical discussion, even the language of the definitions and explanations usually needs elucidation.
If we perceive something then it is real even if it is a hallucination. It is real to the perceiver. How else do you define reality other than that which is experienced?
If God is a verb then god is an action and not an entity. God can then be perceived but not known. If god is a verb then god does not act because he is action.
Is it language that is the stumbling block or is it the perception of what words mean? (hehehe)
Also, I don’t know if I really said anything. This was attributed to Sindee Clark. But I guess it is quoted here with purpose.