How could "Eternity" have a perspective? You're still stuck with labels. Better make sure you've the best one possible in your context.jupiviv wrote:A subject that does not change at all is as inconceivable as one that is only changing. From this it follows that neither change nor permanence is the nature of anything. They are labels for temporal patterns, nothing more. From the perspective of Eternity, everything is a non-changing eternal constant.
As for change or permanency: it was been said already that Tao-in-change does not equal Tao-eternal. Which is in my view the wisest way to interpret the first line of Tao Te Ching. The truth here is that this distinction is exactly the nature of any awareness being demonstrated. Obviously it does not reveal the true nature of Tao beyond a fundamental ambivalence (does she move or not?).
You cannot be sure at all what the objects are which you are experiencing since your knowledge, like your experiences, would be constantly changing. While it's true that "beyond" is another perspective, like "totality", it's a rather unique attempt to destroy the conceptual object with another conceptual object. Some labels are just better than others, like some philosophers are better than others. No way around it.No, objects have to be "there" if we are experiencing them. "A lot beyond it" is just another object that you have experienced, then mistakenly equated it with "your objects".You're indeed making "sense" of objects, with the object equalling your larger, contextual relationship with it. There's a lot beyond it but your objects won't be there.
As it would remain just like opinion and could not deduce with any certainty that it would be more than that. What one is deducing is the cause of the experience itself. In this way awareness is different from an itch and yet we could say they both need some nerve.Why is logical deduction not experiential?That conclusion can itself cannot be anything experiential, so it must at least start logically.