---

Evie Wrote:So what I'm suggesting is that the experience of outrage can still be the same as the experience of rage..... it's just that the outrage is a raging mind looking at the thing that caused the rage, and the rage is the experience of the raging mind itself.... it's just a different perspective. And, importantly: Because rage does actually exist intrinsically as an emotion, and on the other hand, nothing is intrinsically outrageous: When we are enraged isn't that in fact identical in experience to when we are outraged?

Can the experience of knowing be the same as the experience of not knowing?

No.

That's the crux of the difference, Evie.

Rage: Undirected fury.
Outrage: Directed fury.

Quote:If a person looks at a red box from one angle, and another person looks at the same red box from another angle making it look different... does that mean its a different box? No. The perspective is just different. The red box is the same red box in experience, in reality, even if they are defined as different things when they are looked at from different perspectives.

Reality:

The box is an illusion suffered by both parties, and does not exist outside of their own subjective experiences. I truly do not exist to a stone, though I can see it, hold it, smell it, taste it, and toss it violently into another stone that also does not exist to the stone. The red box is a different thing to everyone (and everything) that detects it, and there is nothing to guarantee that the box is anything to anyone else. Some people are taken to special locations with padded cells because things exist to them that do not exist to the other people around them... though those people that do not see may infact be the crazy ones.

Perspective is everything. Reality cannot be dumbed down into any single visualization of what it is... as all reality is: is what everything together makes of it. Should that quantity be nothing, then so too is 'reality' nothing. That red box is also a sphere, and a cylinder, and empty space, and blue with yellow stripes, and violently exploding, and flat, and in motion, and not in motion, and gigantic, and not even registering as a particle, and also a butterfly among twenty others, and maybe even a banana. You speak of the subjective angles in the box... yet angles are nothing as to how very differently all can see "box".

That 'objective' state of reality either doesn't exist (everything being my subjective invention) or cannot be understood as objective by myself. I certainly do not see a reason for the "red box" to be anything but how i see some unknown number and/or shape of things... it seems very naive indeed to conclude that it objectively is anything, and especially that what it objectively is be identical to what i see.

This talk about experience and reality as if they occur beyond experience and reality is silly. The question isn't so much "Is this red box real?"... but "To whom/what is this red box real?". And if someone else should tell you "This red box is real to me": your days yet remain outside the loony bin

---