LOL ole hooved beaky one...

I have heard of synesthesia in passing so had a basic idea but not indepth. Thank you for including the link. Very interesting. Will have to read up on it a bit more (*smacks head, dangit, more things to learn. LOL)

as to my original post, it was more philosophical than anything even though, on a minute scale, each can be proven independently (that is why I added the Beethoven, Helen Keller,and Harriet Tubman)

I guess what I was trying to convey is that I believe one is usually blinded by perceptions. And the perceptions are often perceived to be THE truth. And while it might be the truth, it is NOT the WHOLE truth...(when I say "one", I usually mean me. LOL)

I've always liked this story of the 6 blind men, each feeling a part of the elephant.

when asked to describe what an elephant is, one said an elephant is this long and soft tube (nose), the other one said no, an elephant is fan-like (the ear) and then the other one described that the elephant is like a tree trunk (legs), and so on and so forth,

each described a part of an elephant, and so, it is still an elephant, but it is NOT the whole elephant.

but does that mean that what we see means that it's an elephant?

If I was to put a soft flexible nose on a let's say...gazelle ..put a couple of fans on it's ears, parade it around and say that it is an elephant to a crowd that has never seen an elephant.

So, the next time one of these people sees an actual elephant and are told that it is an elephant, that person (Juan, or one, or me) would probably NOT believe that is an elephant because he/she had seen "the" elephant (gazelle)

since zen is brought up, zen masters usually propose that consciousness beyond perception, thoughts and beliefs.

here is a good quote from Gary Zukav, the Dancing Wu Li Masters:

"'Reality' is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends upon what we think. What we think depends upon what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality."

Now, I really don't know the answers...when one reads philosophy, they walk away with more questions than answers and then one gets a huge headache cause each question leads to more questions and well...

however, the Zen masters have come up with something called "koans"

those are intractable, insoluble conundrums to which the student must find an answer, the answer, however, is NOT reached by any means of logic or thought. Usually, the answer is an experience.

This part of the philosophy kinda works for me. Because here is one of most basic philosophical questions.

Which came first, the egg or the chicken?

Does it matter? Life is a balance and a cycle. When one looks at a circle, how do one tell where it began or where it ended?

Plato and Aristotle both had their own views. But I think both were right to a certain extent...(I think Plato might've been a democrat and Aristotle, a republican. LOL )

are we innately good?

If one was to refer to the bible, we were all born sinners.

If one were to ask the Taoist (Confucius branch of thinking), they claim that we are all born innocent. So, who knows. LOL

I have no clue on clairvoyance, ESP, nor precognition but I am open to anything...although ESP might be MSG, who knows. LOL

I am not very smart, I tend to ask more questions than I have answers...but that's how I learn...and sometimes, I ask questions that reflect how I feel...thus that was my post.

You've raised some very interesting philosophical questions and they are really worth delving into. It's always nice.

I will end this with one of my favorite Philosophers, St. Thomas Aquinas. Who, as a Catholic, was open to Aristotle's methods.

Thus it made him "see" beyond the Catholic teachings at the time (not flaming Catholics, just that period of time) by "listening" to Aristotle's method that one must recognize what is to be assumed and what is to be proven before thinking can get under way.

Knowledge builds on itself, and some disciplines nearer the top of the edifice are dependent on the truths below; they get going with assumptions grounded elsewhere.

However, he also offered this view: (in his Quinque Viae)

A stone moves, and this was caused by a stick which pushed it along, and this was caused by a hand, holding on to the stick, which moved it.

Nothing, is a cause of itself;rather, causes are causes of other things, their dinstinct effects. An infinite regression of casual sequences is not possible (this can actually be backed up by theory of relativity[somewhat])

and it comes down to that there must be a FIRST, to this, Aquinas calls "GOD" (a beginning)

now, I am not a religious person nor do I want to turn this into a religious thread. But it makes sense to me. I am open to it...

thanks for posting, I really enjoy learning...and I am sincere in saying this and that is...the more everyone posts, the more I learn...and I know that I am at fault a lot...but that's OK...that's how I learn.

I mean, who KNEW John Lennon said something about milk and oatmeal (and NOT the instant kind!!) And all this time, I had thought it was his sister, Shawn Linen. She might have said, when milk and oatmeal are burnt, the pot calls the kettle to whine...