The subject is contextualized into a semioticist dematerialism that includes truth as a totality
LOOK MA, I'M ENLIGHTENING THE INTERNET!
Bliss
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
A definition is not its own disproof, and only dualistic when conceived as something other.RZoo wrote:The subject is contextualized into a semioticist dematerialism that includes truth as a totality
Re: Bliss
TheImmanent wrote:The idea of a separate existence is the idea of being self-existent, i.e., a thing-in-itself.
There is a difference between the terms "separate existence", "self-existent" and "thing-in-itself." The first is the distinction between one thing and another, the second is the property of inherent existence, and the third is a thing that has an existence independent from the mind. You can't just switch between them without clarifying what you mean by them.
All definitions are mutually dependent on each other and everything else. That still doesn't mean that the idea of separate existence is false.Interconnection demonstrates the opposite; mutual dependency of definition.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
For something to truly exist separately, its existence must not be compounded of other things, and for it to be self-existent, without being compounded of other things, it must be a thing-in-itself. But, upon closer scrutiny, that which appears to exist separately is intertwined with other things and thus not actually a separate thing, not self-existent. The separate existence of the thing was but a conception in the mind, and not independent from the mind.jupiviv wrote:TheImmanent wrote:The idea of a separate existence is the idea of being self-existent, i.e., a thing-in-itself.
There is a difference between the terms "separate existence", "self-existent" and "thing-in-itself." The first is the distinction between one thing and another, the second is the property of inherent existence, and the third is a thing that has an existence independent from the mind. You can't just switch between them without clarifying what you mean by them.
The mutual dependency of definitions means that a separate existence is merely conceptual, not actual.All definitions are mutually dependent on each other and everything else. That still doesn't mean that the idea of separate existence is false.Interconnection demonstrates the opposite; mutual dependency of definition.
Re: Bliss
It follows from your statement that if something does not really exist separately, it's existence is compounded of other, separate things. Do you see the fault in your reasoning? You are basically saying that nothing can really be separate from other things, as they cause its existence. Separation is not separate from unity. There is no infinite apart from finite things.TheImmanent wrote:For something to truly exist separately, its existence must not be compounded of other things, and for it to be self-existent, without being compounded of other things, it must be a thing-in-itself.
Is this is a quote from memory, or have you accidentally sullied it with your own reasoning? The very claim that a separate existence is nothing but a conception in the mind is founded upon the assumption that the mind is a separate entity able to form such a conception. And for such a claim to be defended, the mind must be believed self-existent, i.e., self-caused, since if all instances of separate existence apart from the occur within the mind as concepts, it follows that the mind is the only existent entity. In other words, it is the idea of solipsism.But, upon closer scrutiny, that which appears to exist separately is intertwined with other things and thus not actually a separate thing, not self-existent. The separate existence of the thing was but a conception in the mind, and not independent from the mind.
Definitions are dependent upon a lot more than other definitions, which comprise a very small portion of the All.The mutual dependency of definitions means that a separate existence is merely conceptual, not actual.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am
Re: Bliss
To truly exist separately is to have nothing to do with anything else. Your statement that there are distinctions is not an objection to what was said. Incorrectly interpreting distinctions as self-defined is the subject at issue. The ego-experience.jupiviv wrote:It follows from your statement that if something does not really exist separately, it's existence is compounded of other, separate things. Do you see the fault in your reasoning? You are basically saying that nothing can really be separate from other things, as they cause its existence. Separation is not separate from unity. There is no infinite apart from finite things.TheImmanent wrote:For something to truly exist separately, its existence must not be compounded of other things, and for it to be self-existent, without being compounded of other things, it must be a thing-in-itself.
It is not. A particular mind is equally a definition, thus not a separate entity. That is the position of the ego-experience, i.e., as explained in the sentences quoted.The very claim that a separate existence is nothing but a conception in the mind is founded upon the assumption that the mind is a separate entity able to form such a conception.But, upon closer scrutiny, that which appears to exist separately is intertwined with other things and thus not actually a separate thing, not self-existent. The separate existence of the thing was but a conception in the mind, and not independent from the mind.
A definition only interacts with definition.Definitions are dependent upon a lot more than other definitions, which comprise a very small portion of the All.The mutual dependency of definitions means that a separate existence is merely conceptual, not actual.