Shadows

[Leyla Shen]

David:

Alright, so you’re saying any particular solid object “thing” isn’t actually a solid object thing and therefore doesn’t have independent, objective existence and is wholly and only a solid object thing by way of our mentally projecting boundaries onto the Totality (which is not the same as what is commonly called “the world” or “the universe” as those concepts, too, fall into the category objective “thing”).

So, this idea of Emptiness (all things lack inherent existence) then becomes useful to an individual when they consider themselves as such an existing thing.

Truly, David Quinn, this is ironically empty!

(More on magic later.)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Leyla,

As Nat has pointed out, "we" are equally nonexistent to everything else - so whether everything exists or nothing exists, we are still on equal footing with the rest of the Universe. Actually it doesn't matter whether you want to say that things exist or not because "exist" is just a word (granted, that making it a pointer), but "exist" does not exist, nor the pointer - which is okay because there is nothing to point to.
.

[plotinus]

I certainly agree that everything derives its reality and causal efficacy from outside itself.

For me, the great question is whether the ultimate source of reality is transcendental [outside the "system" of the universe], or whether reality hangs together as a whole----everything deriving its reality from everything else.
In the second case, only the totality is real, and we have something like the Plenum of Being of Parmenides.
In the first case, that of transcendence, we might have Ultimate Reality immediately above and beyond the universe; or we might have an infinite stack of transcendence: system beneath meta-system, beneath meta-meta-system, on and on, forever.

Niels Bohr said, "The opposite of an ordinary truth is a falsehood; but the opposite of a Great Truth may very well be another Great Truth." It is certainly simpler and neater that way.

Consider the case of the Library of Babel [see the entry under QUOTES ABOUT "PHILOSOPHY"] The meaning of any sentence in the Library lies outside all the individual sentences in the Library; its meaning [or rather, meanings] resides in some system of language or interpretation---system defined by transcendental meta-system. But the grammar of any and all languages exist within some volume or volumes somewhere in the Infinite Library. And the description and definition of that language---the meta-meta-language---also exists in the Library. System and any number of meta-meta-meta-systems all exist enfolded in the Unique Library.

[Of course, you don't really need an infinite library; all you really need are two volumes: one volume containing the symbol "1", and the other volume containing the symbol "0". Then by shuffling and repeating the volumes you could create a binary code of any length. And some other string of binary code would be a description of a language which would define the meaning of the first string.]

塞 翁 失 馬

[Leyla Shen]

Well, David, I cannot make any sense out of your position here--the one that goes one perspective is “nothing ever comes into existence.”

See, I agree that that is a position held by those who fear impermanence--things going “poof” into the night, and all.

You cannot argue against the existence of things without things against which to argue.

Let’s take Woman, for example. Woman is an ideal--there is no independently existing form “Woman.” She is like the wave in quantum mechanics, female (and male) being a particle. One can point to female--locate her in space and time---see her collide with other such particles. One cannot, like with a wave, locate Woman in the same way. But one can see a pattern of interference, just like watching a wave function in a body of water.

The differentiation in quantum mechanics between particles and waves is that when particles collide (a bit like me and U), they bounce off each other, their original courses and speeds and what-not altered. Contrary wise, two waves interfere with each other (a bit like me and you).

So, the question is, David, not about magic but about the truth of Emptiness.

If all things are truly empty, then things exist--but not independently (that is, they have no fixed, independent and/or ABSOLUTE form--and that includes “females”) no matter what one thinks. (It would be impossible to feminise a society if that were not the case.)

Perspective is a red herring and logic the hook that catches it.

A car is definitely a particle.

[Edit emphasis]

[keenobserver]

[quote="Leyla Shen"]Well, David, I cannot make any sense out of your position here--the one that goes one perspective is “nothing ever comes into existence.”

See, I agree that that is a position held by those who fear impermanence--things going “poof” into the night, and all.

You cannot argue against the existence of things without things against which to argue.

Let’s take Woman, for example. Woman is an ideal--there is no independently existing form “Woman.” She is like the wave in quantum mechanics, female (and male) being a particle. One can point to female--locate her in space and time---see her collide with other such particles. One cannot, like with a wave, locate Woman in the same way. But one can see a pattern of interference, just like watching a wave function in a body of water.

The differentiation in quantum mechanics between particles and waves is that when particles collide (a bit like me and U), they bounce off each other, their original courses and speeds and what-not altered. Contrary wise, two waves interfere with each other (a bit like me and you).

So, the question is, David, not about magic but about the truth of Emptiness.

If all things are truly empty, then things exist--but not independently (that is, they have no fixed, independent and/or ABSOLUTE form--and that includes “females”) no matter what one thinks. (It would be impossible to feminise a society if that were not the case.)

response>
Why are you so intent on proving your point that things exist?
What proof have you?
Can you conceive the opposite, nothing existing in the truest sense?

If nothing exists then there is nothing to be concerned about, from the personal perspective. No worries at all. If you cant imagine being free of worries, totally free under any circumstance, if you cant believe it's possible, then no matter what anyone says to you you will not ever accept this truth or become free.
To understand it requires a willingness to bear the loss of yourself and your happiness, so few manage it. You cannot expect the impossible from yourself, right. Dont expect to comprehend without great sacrifice, it will never happen.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

If you are to say that stars don't exist, you've committed yourself to the notion that there is nothing that is star. In such a case you could not coherently say that the sun is a star, as such would entail you saying "there is nothing that is star, and the sun is a star": an outright contradiction. Thus, insofar as you want to say that stars don't exist (there is nothing that is star) it isn't logical for you to believe that the sun is one.

[keenobserver]

If you are to say that stars don't exist, you've committed yourself to the notion that there is nothing that is star. In such a case you could not coherently say that the sun is a star, as such would entail you saying "there is nothing that is star, and the sun is a star": an outright contradiction. Thus, insofar as you want to say that stars don't exist (there is nothing that is star) it isn't logical for you to believe that the sun is one.

The unicorn is a horse.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Keen,

The unicorn is a horse.

Not really. It's an imaginary animal. Imaginary animals obviously exist, as I can name quite a few of them.

[Leyla Shen]

To the keen observer of nothing:

Listen here, stupid. Existing is existing. If there were no self/other, not you nor David would be saying anything, lack of belief notwithstanding.

The self is just as much a fiction as anything. That’s why when I asked the question to David the only “right” answer could be, “There is only God.”

“Existing in the truest sense”? Do tell. Do men and women exist in the truest sense?

[Unidian]

Yep. The only sense they do not exist in is the falsest sense. Unfortunately, that sense is also what most people mean by "existence."

[keenobserver]

To the keen observer of nothing:

Listen here, stupid. Existing is existing. If there were no self/other, not you nor David would be saying anything, lack of belief notwithstanding.

No, we only appear to be saying anything. Its nothing but your appearance.

The self is just as much a fiction as anything. That’s why when I asked the question to David the only “right” answer could be, “There is only God.”

“Existing in the truest sense”? Do tell. Do men and women exist in the truest sense?

Depends who you ask.
It appears to be only rich men and beautiful women, who exist.