What things EXIST differently based on subjective perspective?
Two men look at the same red car. “My that is a beautiful car!” says the first man. “What! Are you kidding? That’s ugly.” says the second. What is the car? I believe neither nor both. But the various karmas of the men determine their own reality. But I haven’t been trained in the classical to see beauty as asthetics teaches.
Beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder. Beauty reflects order. A cleft pallet on a child looks ugly because it is disordered. 2 men looking at a car can be looking for different types of order…but beauty is still the order that they seek.
Oh I know God is the epitome of beauty. Let’s look at this then. I understand to have beauty one needs harmony, radiance and wholeness. Whatever those things mean. Looking at a woman in a bathing suit. Is that looking for beauty or order? Or simply lust. We seem to have this sexual attraction for a reason. And I know it needs to be controlled. It’s something from our past. What does one look for in looking for beauty? Understanding what lust is can help one avoid it. Understanding beauty can open one’s eyes.
Cor 2:14-16
You could be correct, but there are several major premises you need granted. To begin, God created the universe ex nihilo. Therefore, we were also created in our material selves ex nihilo. However, God is always not only in and of himself, but with us through his second person, Jesus. Therefore we have the perception of God. Within ourselves is that very “removal” from our mind and senses, yea within those very senses. This doesn’t disprove your claim since the “corruptibility” theory you present is always valid in operation of these senses.
You are correct if one assumes the existence of God or some other wellspring of reality. But I made my statement on the assumption that there is none, so if there is no such purpose in existence, I can’t rely on it as a source for genuine knowledge. That is, if one assumes that things exist from accident, rather than design, there is no greater purpose behind them that I can orient my thought around.
What exactly do you mean by “removal from the truth in time”. Now we must find out what truth is. When and how was truth removed?
It might also be possible if there are any number of sets of things, subject and object, that fit together like lock and key and for which purpose can therefore be derived functionally, if not existentially in a more global sense. Say species. Men can really only talk meaningfully with other men. Once we try to bridge species barriers, the span of guesswork in terms of true understanding becomes greater. There is also proof of consensus. Look at how a jury works. Nevertheless, I can only guess that Jesus intimated this reality
I think I must have been referring to a twofold removal. In terms of heaven, removal from it in time in that I am not there yet. Also signs. They have a reality of their own, but according to Augustine are things of a different order. To refresh your memory on Augustine, there were at least 2 kinds signs. Signa naturalia, and signa data. Signa data are those used by people for signifying the motions of their spirits or something which they have sensed or understood to transfer it to another mind. Then signa naturalia, which without intention make us aware of a something beyond themselves. Example he gives is smoke and fire. I was also think of a concept from computer science called a “pointer”. It is a space in memory that holds the address of a space where the actual data is stored. I am not a computer memory architect, but the reason for it has something to do with efficiency, orginization and release of memory (if it really matters in this analogy).
I agree with you up to a point but the concept of “thin reality” implies the existence of “full reality”. If we deny we exist all our conclusions are worthless. “Thin conclusions” can be safely ignored! 
First. There is only one reality. My humble suggestion is for readers to look up objective and subjective either in a dictionary or on line.
We certainly CAN verify if something fits into the known parameters of order…through the scientific method in the physical order…AND…through “testing the spirits” and “knowing by the fruits” in the spiritual order.
Someone has said on one of these blogs…“Beauty is reassuring”…and that has stuck with me. Why? Because temporal beauty exposes some of God’s infinite order…and we are both…naturally attracted to and comforted by God’s own order.
Yes, but the scientific method still relies on our own perceptions. We have to guess that what we are observing through the scientific method is indeed taking place. We have no other way of verifying that than our own senses.
You are correct in that a functional purpose can be examined, but function was not quite what I was speaking of. I was speaking of “purpose” in a more existential sense. For example, I can observe the reason why a crocodile eats other animals; it does so to survive. But going past that mechanical purpose and examining why the crocodile wants to survive, or even why the crocodile exists to begin with, there seems to be no higher purpose for it. There is nothing inherent in the universe or its own nature which gives it “purpose” in a meaningful sense. It seems to make no difference whether it exists, or whether it had ever existed at all.
With the sure exception of people, possibly even of one’s self alone, we cannot be sure that any being wants to survive. Everything, every person, operates on the physical level according to (usually) neurophysical laws – and we don’t fully understand their mechanics, do we? Since we don’t have complete knowledge, there always remains the possibility that this higher purpose is yet to be discovered on the physical level. But for some people, spirit and proof of spirit are integral to their survival. Also, for reasons we don’t neurophysically understand. A crocodile will eat other animals as part of its survival process. Some people will not survive unless they partake of the church’s sacrifices. Even if these people are pessimistically labeled of low psychological insight, deluded, etc., any theory of any kind of purpose has to account for and explain their drive towards the ideals and teachings of Jesus. Most people I know myself included derive satisfaction and joy from contemplating his words. It is often said that the purpose of that joy is a first installment on the glories of heaven. Yet the other dimension is that there exists huge inequities in life, socially, economically, and, as perhaps a life which percieves a meaningless universe might suggest – inequities in feeling, emotion, joy and psychological satisfaction. I’m not saying that someone who beholds no meaning is bereft of human purpose in absolute terms, but only that such possibility for that specific joy and satisfaction is a kind of justice for the socially and economically disadvantaged. In a way, meaninglessness beheld is a kind of complaint against the universe. If it is truly no personal concern for he who claims there is no meaning, then that person presents a conundrum for he spiritualist and will probably get a great deal of attempted persuasion when visiting a forum like this. Most spirtualists will not admit of a universe that needs no God. They can’t. When Jesus died on the cross he sort of did do that, asking why God had abandoned him. If what you say about meaning is his real message, then you are correct because we cannot ignore his experience and teaching.