Superculture–
How do you know that I don’t understand enough of how the world operates? What makes you think that I think that there is such a thing as objects and separateness? Who thinks that anything is not derived from pre-existing stuff?
Exactly! Self-reference is the absolute.
What I mean by you don’t understand, is that you are missing key concepts, Concepts are the lenses by which one sees and understands something, therefore if you are missing the concepts, or have improper concepts, you will always have improper understandings. You inherit the properties of what you are derived from - you were always that pre-existing stuff, you are just old stuff reshaped, when we die we are merely reshaped again (diffused) back into reality itself. The evidence you have provided thus far tells me you’re stll not aware of the errors your making in your own thinking… and by this I don’t mean it as an insult or anything like that, consider that:
The truth exists apart from me and you, it always was, we are constantly looking at it (reality), therefore anything that is true always was. Since truth is derived from reality itself, therefore mistaken understandings come from improperly deriving concepts from what is (reality), since our thoughts are merely reflections on what is.
What evidence is that?
Just answer the question: Are things in reality, really seperate in ultimate reality? yes or no?
I asked first. Answer my question and I’ll be happy to answer yours.
The whole point is in what you accept, I claimed you’re under the illusion that you are really separate, therefore my question is in bringing to the surface what you think you know. Therefore I have already answered your question
So your answer is that your claim that I am under illusion is the evidence that tells you that I am not aware of the errors I am making in my thinking? That isn’t evidence, that’s your assumption.
How can the whole point be “in” what I accept? Isn’t what you are calling “the whole point” really just your point? How can your question be “in” bringing anything to the surface? What do those prepositions mean?
You seem to be perplexed about the problem of the one and the many. Your perplexity won’t be helped by the fact that even if objects are merely or ultimately illusory, ordinary language requires them.
No it’s not my assumption, truth exists apart from me and you. My whole point is language improperly conceived, is not reality, when you look at the physics of reality, all concepts are derived from reality. Therefore concepts conceptualized a long time ago were based on misunderstandings of reality, therefore we can look at how reality is to see if they hold up or they become incoherent . That was the point, objects are merely distinct, not seperate, therefore there are no ‘individuals’, only distinctions (inequalities) in the surface of reality.
That makes sense to me. So where are my errors?
Because you asked “why is it a problem”, because ONE certainty already exists, i.e. once you have one truth, all other truths are derived from that one reality - i.e. existence, got it now?
That is where you erred, by questioning “Why is it a problem?” Implying there was none, when I was trying to show the other poster his error The problem is there is one certainty already, that truth exists, and existence is truth. All other truths are derived from the one - existence.
But this presumes you even know what an illusion is, after all, all concepts are derived from reality, you got that concept of illusion from reality, but illusions in reality, are actual true events just misinterpreted. i.e. if I write a fictional story, the story exists, now if someone believes it is an actual history, that is when something that exists becomes true or false, but it only does so to the observer/perceiver only, i.e. your thought are representational, that is, reflections of what you received.
Yes but what does “inaccessible” mean? does it mean inaccessible for an eternity? Does it mean “we are not currently able to know the extent of what is accessible?” your claim is a claim to knowing that there is some ultimate inaccessibility, but you don’t have that knowledge, so it seems your assertion on the head of it is not a known. Atoms and electrons were once part of that inaccessibility you speak of, computers, the internet, etc, come from concepts and things that were once thought to be inaccessible.
I can’t say, but I can say that looking at the growth of human knowledge over the extent of history - knowledge continuously grows at an average rate over time. If knowledge is growing, you’ve asserted that there is a point where knowledge will stop growing, but how would you know that?
Finally clarification. Your use of the word problem was ambiguous. Asking you to disambiguate it wasn’t an error. You could have answered the question when I asked it.
The fact that you questioned it proved that you didn’t think there was a problem with the other posters assertion, which only means you accepted the posters position, you are a master at evasive rhetoric I’ll give you that, but the logical implication of your question is what is inescapable, so my conclusion stands.
no i don;t presume to know, i presume to not know.
reality is presumably a true stoty, however the only way we can read the story is by writing our own stories, which always have the potential to be fictional.
we don;t experience the true story., we experience it second hand and worse.
well, the reason why i can make the assertion is because there will always be the possibility of more knowledge. this puts it out of reach because of time constrictions, but there is also the possibility that there is some sort of knowledge that is simply impossible to discover. given that uncertainty, i say that it is always possible that we’ve missed something critical, and in that uncertain light, no quest for knowlege is certain.
i know it because i know humans are doomed.
the clock on our race is counting down to our extinction.
so let the race begin, i’ll be taking bets.
I thought that reality was the sum of the whole - reality is and of itself: can it be anything else but…
In the first case “problem” clearly referred to the poster’s position. In the second case, “problem” could refer to one certainty–the fact of existence. I didn’t see that as a problem, hence the question.
really
existence is the reality of the awareness of the constituents that make up the self , biologically speaking , which allows your above question to be asked in the first place
tautology is irrelevant
Actually tautology is relevant, since everything that exists maps back circularly, i.e. circular reasoning works because reality itself is self-referencing function as a whole. So yes tautology is quite relevant especially when we consider logic and human knowledge, which is derived from reality itself, therefore if reality is a tautology, so then would every last bit of human knowledge, since all knowledge is derived from the universe itself.
Does reality really reference? How so? Tautologies only apply to assertions.