Jehu;
J: While there is no ‘rational’ alternative to conceptualization as a means of understanding the nature of things, nevertheless, there is an alternative, and one that is all to frequently taken: the alternative being to merely accept that things are as they appear; regardless of the logical inconsistencies that such a view entails.
S: No, 'things are (exactly) as they appear' is not merely an irrational acceptance, but rests upon the fact that they couldn't possibly be any different, as per causally created conditions.
J: It is most certainly not a ‘fact’ that 'things are (exactly) as they appear', for it has never been logically demonstrated that they must necessarily be, and besides, a great deal of things have turned out to be other than how they appeared. For example, the Earth appears to be flat when in fact it is not, and the Sun appears to revolve around the Earth, when in fact this is not the case; just to name a couple.
It is pretty obvious that you are taking “appearances†to mean in an empirical sense, whereas that statement as I understand it, is purely a philosophical one. And I personally don’t recommend or generally use the word “appears†in such contexts. I have pointed that out many a times because it does not convey what the speaker really means, and creates further confusion rather than clarity; and ironically, all in the name of presenting clarity of mind. But at times I may use it because it makes sense to those that state it philosophically.
If at all, I would use the word “presents†rather than ‘appears’, since “appear†implies that that
appearance itself is ILLUSORY, which has actually nothing to do with how or what “I†KNOW about THINGS, or consider it to be their nature. (I personally don’t consider ‘things’ to be “illusoryâ€, which is a different story). A thing ‘presents’ its self irrelevant of my prior knowledge of it, and what is its
nature is a later
realization. But in every moment of when and what is, it IS. Which is what ‘existence’ is all about, and not what “you†or “I†may
think about it.
‘Appearances’ in a philosophical sense are exactly the moments in which absolutely anything that “appearsâ€, appears, in and off a causal condition, which according to me is basic awareness, and in our case that makes up the mind itself, which could not be any different unless the causal conditions were different. So, it appeared that “the Earth is flat†when it did, and it appeared that “the Earth is a sphere†when it did, and it appeared that “the Earth is Pear (or egg) shaped†(as we know of it now). In each instances it “appeared†(presented) to be what that moment was.
However, you will have to ask the experts if what I said isn’t clear enough. One of them is…
JEHU: Yes, this is exactly what it means. It means that regardless of whether a thing is considered to be real, or to be only an illusion, it still ‘is’ (exists), for its ‘stands’ before the mind - as its object. In fact, the ancient essentialists would have defined existence as ‘that which may be either perceived or thought about (imagined)’.
In other words… 'things are (exactly) as they appear'. And if not from what I tried to explain in my layman’s term, then you can at least see what the ancient essentialists meant or understood but that, or are you simply presenting it for the sake of argument, since it seems to imply that it is TEHM that say it, not Jehu. Do you simply understand what that means, or do you affirm that that is true? Is the question.
Do you think we have come a full circle, Jehu; or would you like to further explore this issue?
Are you familiar with the optical illusion wherein two black vases are placed together in such a way as to give the ‘appearance’ that there is a white vase in the intervening space?
Yes, and many more. For example a better example of what Existence really is… since it IS in 3-D and not 2-D, so a 2-D example does not really suite the porpose… (Scroll down a bit… and click “Watch the videoâ€)
...one... ...two...
This is how all relative entities come into being: extrinsic causes are brought into a relationship, and then, because the cognizant agent does not recognize the extrinsic causes, it erroneously take the relationship to be an entity itself, with its own intrinsic causes (properties).
I am aware of that, but relative entities are all necessarily relative to the mind too, otherwise absolutely nothing could come into being THEN, nor would the mind itself. More over, one mind does not relate in the same manner that another could or does. I know I might not make sense to you, which is one of the proofs how different minds do not relate in the same manner to existence.
Now, with respect to your use of the term ‘infinite’, the term rightfully means ‘beyond completion’ and so it may only be used with respect to a process, such as takes place within the field of time, but cannot reasonably be applied to an entity, for an entity is spatially extended. An entity, if it is real, must contain within itself that which is necessary and sufficient to its existence (i.e., its own intrinsic causes), and so is necessarily ‘complete’; and therefore, nothing may be added to or taken away for an entity without the it changes the entity into something else.
Well said, but I’m not talking about an “entity†really, unless you consider ‘relativity’ to be an entity, which I consider a process that incorporates
causality as well as that which is caused, (including the mind, which I consider to be at a different level than awareness), otherwise causality isn’t. However “illusory†one may consider “things†to be, but they are REALLY there, as and when they are. There is no other "realiy" other than that, and that requires two (Awareness AND things) to interdependently and interactively tango, and neither one of them could be any more "non-real" than the other. All we can really do, is be and enjoy the dance. BE as a thing, and ENJOY as an awareness. However, best conforming to reason and humility, for it is WE who have the power to think, and should use that tool appropriately.
This is how
“I†relate to existence, whereas somebody else may not. So it still remains relative you see. So how unreal or worthless is 'relativity' or a realtive "thing" itself?
Each moment experienced is out of this world, so to speak; no miracle could impress me more.
(you can disregard the last sentence; it is but an expression of how
"I" realte to existence; just felt like expressing it in this moment.)