Posted: Mar 31, 2012 4:43 am
asdfjkl wrote:what i mean that if observation is the only reality.
would that be true?
and
is my arguement supreme?
No, the argument is not supreme. Its not even correct.
Observation is not the only reality.
Observation is 'the only self evident' fact - fair enough.
As I would say; 'there is experience of something'.
Lets say 'there is observation of something'
But that does not mean the thing observed is reality, nor that the observer is reality.
What it means is that the only known reality is that there is observation - this is why 'observation' is the known reality, not observer or observed.
The thing which is observed may be total illusion, or a reflection of reality in some way, or could even be reality - but the fact that there is observation of something does not form a basis upon which the reality of the something can be directly and automatically established as self evident.
Please note the distinction between the reality of the 'something observed' and the self-evident fact that there is observation.
'The reality of the process of observation, and the reality of the thing observed, and the reality of the observer, are distinct', thats what I am trying to show you.