--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > As long as you realize it's only an assumption... > > > > This point really speaks to the problem I have with the claims of > > complete knowledge in Eastern philosophy. > > ??? Where was I making claims of complete knowledge for > Eastern philosophy?
I was contrasting your own humbling description of the human condition in knowledge with that of Eastern philosophy's claims. I don't lump you in with the snake handlers Judy! > > > The higher states model > > lacks what I consider the appropriate human condition > epistemological > > humility about what we know. Since I haven't seen any evidence of > > someone possessing super knowledge skills among those claimed to be > in > > higher states, their claims of states of complete knowledge seem > > inflated and bogus. By repeating Vedic phrases as if this > represents > > the highest form of human knowledge, they exhibit the same blind > > reliance on the authority of scripture as Kentucky snake > handlers. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > But that's what's so interesting to me--not *whether* > > > > > one or the other is true, but the fact that we can't > > > > > tell, that we can never know the most fundamental > > > > > fact of ontology. > > > > > > > > I think we can tell which view is true. Occams Razor, > > > > why weigh down observable reality with an invented > > > > version of reality far more complex than it needs to be? > > > > > > But Occam's razor tells us which version is *more > > > likely* to be true; it doesn't tell us which *is* true. > > > > > > > Same with God, I can't see that it's up to anyone to > > > > disprove it but for the believers to prove the rest of > > > > us are wrong. > > > > > > Again, the point is that you can neither prove *nor* > > > disprove either solipsism or realism. > > > > > > I'm a realist so I'll stick with assuming > > > > you and everyone else is actually here and not part of > > > > my daydreams. > > > > > > As long as you realize it's only an assumption... > > > > > >
