Diebert van Rhijn wrote:jupiviv wrote:Realisations are things, so they can be counted.
Yes, after turning them in countable abstracts first.
"Countable abstracts" or in other words quantities. I'm afraid this discussion is rapidly devolving into "what is the meaning of 'is'?" levels.
The question is if they would mix well. For the same reason you cannot "add" water and fire unless you first box them properly . But then all you're doing is counting these boxes which were not there before.
You added water and fire right there by using the word "and".
The mind isn't their ultimate nature because that would mean the mind appears to itself, which is impossible for the same reason a fingertip cannot touch itself.
A fingertip can touch the mirror like the mind can reflect upon itself or its actions to some extent. But it remains a limited false sense of self, naturally. An non-existing mirage but it's how it's done. Through logic its falsehood can become potentially pieced together.
Yes, the mind can understand itself indirectly. But its understanding of itself is not necessarily flawed.
When you talk about identification, one talks as well about causality, stretching out in time and space and god knows which other direction. There's no inherent moment where it all "happens" or "exists", no "inherent self". This is the stunning truth of causality.
Identity is not the same as an inherently existing self. An inherently existing self would actually be the opposite of identity, since it denies any appearance that differs from the self.
The realization is not "all things", its the realization that it always applies.
Diebert, you're making no sense. This directly contradicts what you said about the realisation of the true nature of all things in your first 2 posts in response to me:
But I'm not sure if that realization could be said to be finite, representing causality and the infinite in every possible way. Because we define an absolute truth to be true in all possible words and circumstances, the realization of it cannot be called relative and finite.
So what is it that you're realizing? In the end it will include the realization that this very realization itself is infinite for the reasons that there's no boundary to where it applies to. And that its manifestation as a finite thing or thought therefore has been also a misconception.
Is a realisation that can apply to all finite things finite or infinite? Clarify your position.
Whatever causality "does" there wouldn't be any change in the truth that there's only causality. One can therefore not speak about it doing anything since actions imply changes in some state.
It doesn't do them in the same way as finite things, but by virtue of the fact that it is the ultimate source of all causes/actions.
The moment it's understood it becomes clear even that realization does not need to remain.
So you just have another realisation - that the previous one doesn't need to remain.
No it's the consequence of the same realization, it's not a different one, just applied more seriously.[/quote]
Is the realisation discarded or deepened further?
But a thing cannot have an appearance and then assigned the status of being it.
This would be true if a) things were not what they are b) the true being of a thing never appears. If you believe the former, you are clearly wrong. If the latter, you have posited another appearance of the thing and called it the real/true one, hence contradicted yourself.
So that's why I say "what-it-is equals what-it-is" but that only tells you it doesn't really exist as "it" anywhere, anytime, anyhow.
I take it that your point here is that the meaning of 'is' is really that which I *really* want to be? That's my point too, but what am I? Am I what you is?
They (things) appear to exist. But the truthfull question remains: do they really? And truth like causality begs to differ as it lays out what real existence is.
All we can say for certain is that a thing is exactly how it appears to be. The moment you take a step beyond that point, like the post modernists, you're in lala land. In order to deny the reality of actual appearances, you must create fictional ones.
But you do strongly imply knowledge about a thing with a phrase like "it is what it is".
Whatever I know about a thing concerns that thing itself, so I don't see the problem with implying that.
You only have the arbitrary collection of knowledge: not a thing. You only have "what it is" as a fancy phrase for "A".
The "arbitrary collection of knowledge" you talk of is also a thing, which is a fancy phrase you have for an arbitrary collection of knowledge about me and my posts. So you're as bad as me, oh playful Rheinnixe.
Finitude does not exist so yes, non-existence is inherent to all things.
But what it is are not what it are never am!
The infinite is not "made up" of anything or filled like some old half-empty jar in the fridge. Those are make-shift beliefs and need to be abandoned.
No it's your belief that the infinite is a non-existent finite thing that needs to be abandoned.