Walter’s Comments (group member since May 01, 2008)

Walter’s comments from the Debate & Reasoning in Tibetan Buddhism group.

I accept it.
(Spell out your answer "I accept it.")
I accept that this computer in the former moment is a cause.

There is something, the subject, this computer in the former moment.

(we can do it however. i guess old school style. i need to practice so i don't forget.)

There are Three Possibilities.

I accept it.

(I'm nerdy with this stuff too. How about let's end this one without the neither and I'll tackle the next one.)

I accept it

A dppc is not a sc because of being a prime cognizer.

(sorry it took me a while, my thoughtshave been scattered.)

I accept it.
...
Because of being a non-mistaken knower free from conceptuality.

There is something, the subject, a Directly Perceiving Prime Cognizer.

i accept it.

because of being a knower which is a cognizer but not a prime cognizer.

(I wanted to just write - a knower which is not a prime cognizer - but it seems that would include something like a wrong consciousness despite that is its definition.)

I accept it.

I accept it.

I accept it.
:spell out your answer, "I accept it":
I accept that a directly perceiving subsequent cognizer is a direct perceiver.
:Why do you say that the subject, a DPSC, is a DP?:
Because of being a a valid cognizer which is not an inferential cognizer.

("Induced by" meaning "Caused by" would be my best guess as well.

then a subsequent cognizer and subsequent inferential cognizer must 3 possibilities correct? otherwise my above answer is quite wrong.

Thanks for the clarification of cognizer and knower. I guess I was thinking of cognizer in "western scientific" terms.

I never got to read the "Mind" book. In my debate class we never used it, and the 2nd semester where they used it wasn't offered during my time, so a lot of the consciousness stuff is new to me. I've always meant to pick up a copy, but I kept thinking i would run into it one day in a book store. I haven't. I think you are right with cognizer/valid cognizer being M.I.)

There is something, the subject, a directly perceiving subsequent cognizer.


(Thanks, i had to consult my trusty perdue debate book. as far as conceptual cognizer, what is meant by the phrase "induced by..." especially in regards to "induced by direct perception?" a conceptual cognizer induced by direct perception seems quite odd to me, so i must be missing something? and is cognizer M.I. with knower/consciousness/awareness/the clear and knowing? I can't find a definition for 'cognizer' in my book.)

There are four possibilities.


(subsequent cognizer is a new term for me, and I've forgotten a lot of debate)