Jehu;
It would appear that our principle sticking point is ‘what makes a relative entity not realâ€, so let me see if I can shed some light on why this must be so.
Yes, I'm afraid so. Thanks.
Imagine first that there is a black disc on a white background, and imagine that this disc is an absolute entity, and that the blackness is its intrinsic cause.
Fine, but please keep in mind, purely “intrinsic†causes wouldn’t mean much, because if they are causes, then that implies dynamic interactivity between more than one thing, so, there has to be something other than blackness itself, for blackness to be.
Then, imagine a white disc on a black background, and that this disc is a relative entity, and the blackness is its extrinsic cause.
Fine, but again, please keep in mind; this white disk can also be an absolute entity, with its own whiteness as its intrinsic causes. And, in the above black disc; the whiteness could be the extrinsic causes.
The first disc (black) exists in-and-of itself and so is said to be real, while the second disc (white) does not exist in-and-of itself, and so is not real.
I don’t think so. You see, if you consider either the black disc or the white disc on its own as an absolute entity, then neither actually exists, for they cannot be without the extrinsic contrast. And this is exactly my point; the dividing line between the disc and the background, which is the point of awareness actually. Unless the contrast is not there to begin with, awareness cannot be, which is but a resultant effect and creation of opposing forces in and of causality, and not only the other way around. Our consciousness cannot possibly create causality, but as an emergent effect, can influence further effects as a cause by itself.
In other words, a relative entity is one that exists only as a relationship between its extrinsic causes, and so like a shadow, exists only in the mind of a cognizant observer.
The black disc cannot exist on its own intrinsic blackness, unless there is a white background that MAKES it a DISC to begin with, or even INTRINSIC to hold meaning. You are claiming those causes to be intrinsic because of the boundary that limits it as a disc, otherwise, what exactly would “intrinsic†mean?
However, this is a good example but the scenario seems to be poorly imagined; my point exactly is that absolutely no-thing can exist unless there is at least one causally connected but however a “boundary†that contrastingly separates the black and the white, otherwise, neither exit.
So, to say the least, in an ultimate sense, boundaries are necessary for existence to be, at least one, which means, a minimum of two differentiated things, and these two can never be ONE.
In fact, Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave†is intended to illustrate just this point: that all perceptible things partake of only a relative existence, and that it is the interaction of the light of awareness and the opaque object that is knowledge, that gives rise to them all.
I know, and I have nothing against Plato, but what do YOU think is what matters, isn’t it? Why should it necessarily be the case if Plato said so? I don’t understand. I’m not saying that there were no brilliant minds in those times, but what makes us think that we are any less? Can’t we think for ourselves irrelevant of those tons of philosophical books? From which book must have the first philosopher got his ideas from? Life, or even consciousness, itself is the biggest book available and open to all, all that needs be done is read it. The only book on philosophy I ever read was ‘philosophy for dummies’, which I remember buying at some airport some fifteen years ago. (I think it was New York). It’s like a reference book that holds the crux of many philosophers, which I have actually read but once. If you are of the mind that I have to be a qualified and a certified philosopher with a Ph.D. to understand what you are saying, then I’m sorry to say, I’m not, but I believe I can think, so if you are up to it, then please speak your mind.
On what logical grounds can you assert that the ‘concept’ of existence does not rely upon ‘conceptualization’? Surely you understand that concepts are all that we human beings have to work with, and that even the notion of an existence that is independent of our conceptualising is merely that, a ‘concept’.
On the grounds that Existence is not entirely dependent on me, nor my capability of abstract addition or subdivision of that which is not me, against which, I am.
Is it always that one conceptualizes or defines a feeling
that it may occur, or expresses what one feels, through a complex enough communicative capability such as ours?
Close your eyes and feel, there will necessarily be a you, and that which is not you, and the sensual interaction felt, is
your particular awareness. On the other hand, just watch a fly operate coherently with its environment, it doesn't do that because you are conceptualizing its flight path.