My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />The most counterintuitive claim made by DRP about reality is that things with conceptual existence are real.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Isn't that the same as saying the mind is real, thoughts are real, ideas, conclusions, concepts are real?

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Do we really want to start tracking "official" (and enforced) definitions of other words?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> That could get unwieldy, no?

How about if you think a word has become problematical, like you did with the many ways we were using pareidolia (all), you force the issue again.

rd

That's probably the right way to handle it.

If anyone becomes concerned about a particular word, they should bring it up for consideration.

What about the words you mentioned earlier, Rich? (Part of what I'm doing by bringing up the DRP take on reality is a response to you mentioning the word 'real' in this context.)

<b>[rderosa] "Isn't that the same as saying the mind is real, thoughts are real, ideas, conclusions, concepts are real?"</b>

Pretty much. For example, according to DRP concepts really are real.

But they are not physical.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />That's probably the right way to handle it.

What about the words you mentioned earlier, Rich? (Part of what I'm doing by bringing up the DRP take on reality is a response to you mentioning the word 'real' in this context.)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So far only "psychological" and "real" required clarification as they pertained to pareidolia (modern) vs. (ressler).

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />
Pretty much. For example, according to DRP concepts really are real.

But they are not physical.


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<b>cogito ergo sum</b>?

rd