(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2) [continued(7)])[14th April 1987]

[Redbook3:189-190][19870414:1003g](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2) [continued(7)])[14th April 1987]

19870414:1003

[continued]

However, in re-introducing* the concept of Objective Reality we must also face again the possibility of inaccurate perception, which we had left with Outer Direct Knowledge**. What is the difference between 'I saw a blue flash in the Sky' and 'I feel the quality of xP's presence and the intense dynamic innocence of xS, with an inner sense'? Both, if said truthfully, are at least subjectively true.

I think the difference is that while we may*** doubt whether there was in fact a blue flash or anything else associated with it in the Sky at all, we may only doubt the clarity with which the speaker felt or perceived (for example) the innocence (assuming that we are satisfied that he broadly understands and shares our meaning for 'innocence'#*, in particular). I think this is different in that it does not**** cast doubt upon the objective reality of the Quality or upon the fact that the speaker perceived or felt it; it merely suggests that his perception may have been clouded, by his own nature (there being nothing else between his inner sense and the objective reality perceived, so far as I can tell).#

It is not easy to conceive of a statement made truthfully and in the knowledge of how people use the word 'Innocence'#*: 'I feel the quality of innocence' that was actually wrong, i.e. incorrect, e.g. the Speaker was describing something else. Some qualities are more difficult than others to relate to the language of experience: Love is perhaps the easiest;#** I have as yet no name for the quality of xP, as distinguished from the qualities she possesses on the Circles.

*[See last previous entry.]

**p123 [[Redbook3:122-123][19870405:1057e](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(5)])[5th April 1987] final para].

***[in the sense “are able to” – not “are likely to” – presumably. (cf. [Redbook3:187-188][19870414:1003e](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2) [continued(5)])[14th April 1987], final para?)]

****Doesn't it? It doesn't prove it any more, does it? Or does it? <870817> {(See below)}

#(The nature of possible 'clouding' may simply be distancing from or fading of the Quality: can a Quality be distorted or mixed? I suspect not: it would then be something else. But of course his nature may distort his understanding of what he perceives, which is perhaps where his knowledge of what other people mean becomes important.)

#*[i.e. in this (type of) context: in the personal, i.e. qualitative, sense, not e.g. the moral or legal senses. Innocence was perhaps not the most straightforward quality to choose, or be chosen by, for this purpose. <20160305>]

#**(But see [[Redbook3:191-192][19870414:1003i](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2) [continued(9)])[14th April 1987]] p191-2)

[continues]

[PostedBlogger03for04052016]