Withdrawn
The things pointed to are not things, but arbitrary delineations forming a pattern with meaning specific to and codependent with the observer, like the words against the background. The words are not separate from the background, but codependent with the background since neither could exist without the other. We couldn’t have a background without a contrast to manifest the blankness and conversely there could be no words without the background. Divisional boundaries do not separate, but join in a continuity.
The only reason there are words at all is there are eyes to see them. Words don’t exist in “actuality” because there are no eyes to see them nor a brain to give them meaning. Actuality is probably just a bubbling soup of “whatever” and you make what you make out of the randomness.
Why is a pattern, a pattern? If you dump some toothpicks and spot a pattern, is that a special event? The pattern isn’t inherently meaningful, but the meaning requires an observer.
No division between a thing (concept) and anything else.
What is the mind?
If there are no separate things, then the brain is continuous with everything else. Your mind is in your head and your head is in your mind.
Otherwise it wouldn’t be life 
Right, part of the whole cannot point to the whole. There is no objectivity because all observation is in the eyes of the beholder.
How, wonders the group, does “actuality” come to mean anything? The group knows of ostensive definitions, i.e., pointing at things one can see.
The group says, only through the “non-actuality”, did the group get to speculating about the”bubbling” that “probably is going on. the group doesn’t find this derivative hyper-remote actuality very actual.
The group says, patter is a pattern. The word is, patterns one can point to are, and so are oak trees, with their dear leaves bunched at the far edge of the branches, growing dirty green with age.
The group says, this thesis is supposed to be different from other claims about what is. The group says, boring and vacant.
The group says, obviously. The group says, this specific notion is lame. The group holds, this must be reached, not just prattled about as dogma.
The group says, this violates the groups thesis that all is the same. Since It speaks of life and perplexion and, tacitly, oneness.
Perhaps this “actuality” is a name for the illusion as a whole, though, one can not point to the whole, which is a kind of ideal.
The group says, how can the group deny objectivity without knowing what it is denying through that thing existing for the group? What is objectivity claiming?
Dirty green only exists as a pattern because the sun exists as a pattern. They relate to each other and neither one is an objective pattern with inherent meaningfulness.
A tree has branches only because there is an atmosphere. Branches have no meaning without an atmosphere.
Objectivity is an observerless observation. If there is an observer, then it’s subjectivity and not objectivity.
If you are separate from the universe, then how can you observe it?
If you are part of the universe, then how can you observe it?
The group thinks this sounds like a so-called subject reading a computer readout. Ergo, the so-called “observation”, if one spell it out plainly, is a measurement by a machine. And it reaches only the assumed to be “subject”, none other.
So far as the group understands this, it generally and vaguely agrees. Though, it would be better to reach a closer sensing of what this says. Not sure how the group can speak of subjectivity under such a saying, as is in these two statements or sentences.
Is a blue spine of a book seen? Or, rather, is it simply being. Is it seen, is it there, or is it a being. This points to three different undeveloped determinations. To be there, still there when the human closes its eyes. To be seen, seen when the human sees it. To be, this is difficult.
That is not true, since there is no atmosphere in dreams and imagination and memory. The being of the pattern comes prior to any examination about what causes it. Otherwise, how would one ask? One asks, what is the cause of the green, not, what is the cause of the, as it were, nothing? It is not obvious that the green does not come first ultimitly, literally or historically, it did come first.
Other thoughts of the group on this subject matter:
This is all not quite true, or not simply true. The group even would say it is only a secondary matter. Since, if there were no green, their could never be green leaves. It’s not evident what it means for green to exist. For instance, if there were no eyes, one could never get to it, even if it had an independent existence. More subtle, if it were not noticed as green, even by eyes that took in the color, it would never be reached.
In other words, one needs the lens of the eyes to see, and yet, they do not see, seeing is being aware. Dogs never, in this sense, see oak trees, they don’t distinguish in that sense. The group is saying, is it simply and obviously so that green is from the sun? Only because we have green, do we ask about the cause of it. And, moreover, we have it also in dreams. We even know what green means in some vague way.
Observation is a matter of fact, which is consensus of opinion viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194190&start=25#p2705957
Whatever the machine says is interpreted by the observer as a matter of fact based on the consensus of his opinion.
It means if you are separate from the universe, you cannot see the universe because in order to see it, you’d have to be in it because there is no space or light outside the universe. And if you are in the universe, then you are a part of the universe and therefore can’t observe the whole universe. So there is no way to make an objective observation.
You can try to deduce what the universe would look like from the outside, but you can’t actually do it. Deduction may be a valid form of observation (according to Goethe), but you cannot test it (empirical confirmation).
The book and the observer is one. There is no book that is separate from the observer. If there were, then the observer could not see the book. That is the point you’re missing.
Existence (being) is relational. There is no such thing as abstract existence.
The atmosphere is as real as the branches in the dream.
Well, who is asking? Who beats your heart? You do it, right? You’ve been doing it long before you had neurology to ask how it’s done or who does it. Now your myth of yourself is asking how a pattern came into existence that you put into existence.
There is no such thing as green unless there is an eye and a brain to see it.
The sun sits in total darkness unless there is something to see the light or feel the heat. The emission and reception of a photon is the same event, which takes zero time. If there is nothing to receive the photon, then how can there be an event?
You’re thinking that the sun just spews radiation off into nothingness; it doesn’t. Every pitcher has a catcher. Every photon that has left the sun has already arrived at its destination, just not from our point of view.
Green is just a specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation. The reason leaves are green is because blue is a higher frequency and therefore higher energy and therefore better to get energy from. UV is too high and causes molecules to vibrate apart (sun burn). Red is also a good frequency of light from which to harvest energy only because red light can penetrate. But green is the odd man out. A chlorophyll molecule cannot resonate at every frequency, but only one, so it resonates strongest at blue and some in red (as a harmonic), but not green. Resonance is the product of bond strength and mass. So the reason green is green is because atoms had a specific mass and bond strength when arranged in a pattern that was most efficient for harvesting energy from the given light (which itself is a product of the composition of the sun… as the sun ages, the light will shift red because elements get heavier and plants will likely evolve to efficiently utilize that spectrum and will probably look black in the red light… so our new green would be black).
Everything that exists is contingent upon the environment that existed prior and green is just an artifact of the way atoms are built which is an artifact of some other truth and on and on.
Why you see green as green, I don’t know. Do you see the same green that I do?
Goethe was speaking of reason. That which appeals to the soul or judgment about things said that make sense. Reason no longer plays a role in deduction under the current conception of nature, nature as what is measurable. Deduction simply means math, its rules. Induction can only mean statistical data under this notion of reality. Universe is already ruled out as a notion of reason in the way its set out here, that takes no form in mathematical physics. Observation in a loose sense is not the issue, since the mathamatical physics is prefigured such that observation means measurement.
This doesn’t add up with the group’s other answer:
Whatever the machine says is interpreted by the observer as a matter of fact based on the consensus of his opinion.”
If something is “interpreted” we speak of a “separate” observer and thing the machine “says”. The “opinion” stands even further from the thing, within the “observer” and “separate” from the so-called “fact”.
So, the group doesn’t understand what it is saying, but produces notion it hasn’t entered into. It would have to withstand the difficulty of keeping with the thinking it supposes in the mere statements. Anyone can produce a series of statements, for instance by repeating the words of a great thinker, few can genuinely enter into them.
The group says, in this sense one speaks of beings & not “facts” in any sense.
The group says, such is one way of thinking alongside many others of the group.
The group says the group moves rapidly, to the point of total lack of power of thought, between the many: talking of “eye and brain”, and conceptual play with the notion of no “self” and “myth” of distinctions. Here, one should notice the logos, as what speaks the whole account as a difficulty.
Not sure why the many with their scientific account of green would show up, without the being of green from which it first starts and has its life.
Deduction isn’t math, but logic and logic is a means of perceiving the universe just like vision, but what is perceiving what? The thing that is doing the observing is part of the thing that is being observed.
There is no thing that is separate. If there were, you could not be aware of it. If you can be aware, then it is not separate. Everything in the universe is part of the universe and things outside this universe cannot be detected from inside this universe. Existence is relational: everything that exists, exists as a function of, in relation to, as a part of, inside of something. So “fact” is not a thing that can exist objectively/abstractly; it can only be relative to interpretation. For example the speed of light is 300,000 meters per second, but what is a meter and what is a second? Well, they are artifacts of this universe and consensus of opinion. Light only has movement at all in relation to the thing it is part of. You can’t measure the speed abstractly/objectively because there is no such thing as speed outside the universe. And a meter is just an arbitrary length that people agreed upon.
Facts are always relative. There are no objective facts and it’s meaningless to consider if there could be.