C: I mean, our subjective/objective experiences, if dealt with using pure logic, infer a totality that is beyond our definition of existence (yet it is not nothing), and is beyond objective/subjective.
L: It's not beyond our definition of existence---it does not exist by our definition of existence. [Edit: the emphasis here may appear irrelevant but is, in fact, a distinction between magic and reality.
Sorry, how does the way that I put it, imply magic?
Leyla wrote: "It(the totality) is not nothing" because it can be understood logically
Your definitions/concepts can be understood logically, because it was logic that created them. Logic can only understand what it creates. Phenomena and the totality that they are rooted in, are ultimately unknowable.
Fundamentally, the assumed (and where it, in fact, becomes a point of contention) difference between the existence of a pink unicorn and the totality is that the existence of a pink unicorn refers to a finite/tangible object experienced by a subject. Otherwise, you might just as competently call the Totality the Pink Unicorn---or Yahweh, Allah, et cetera. However, both ideas are actually a product of pure logic in that experiencing the (objective/finite/tangible manifestation of the) thing is not a requisite to its existence as an idea. That is, there is no referent with the manifest quality known as "physical object."
No, a pink unicorn is something you can know from experience. (ah, now don’t you laugh now :) Just listen further....)
You can experience a unicorn in your imagination, a movie, a book, a picture, etc.
The totality as a concept is used, not for subjective fanciful enjoyment (like a pink unicorn), but to account for the fact of there being phenomenon/appearance. If you accept/take for granted that there are indeed varying appearances, then the notion of a totality logically follows. The totality, as a truth is analytic a priori. In other words, you don’t need to experience the totality, in order for it to be true. A unicorn on the other hand, is something that you must experience as an image, whether in a book, a drawing, a movie, a story, etc. It is purely subjective/objective. The totality, by definition, is not. Comparing the two makes very little sense.
Leyla wrote: A pink unicorn, after all, is also not nothing whatsoever and, so being, "beyond objective/subjective" since it has no referent.
Sure a pink unicorn has a referent. It’s an image in the imagination, on the picture, movie, cartoon, whatever. Look at one of those whales with the perfectly straight horns. Then look at a horse. Then look at the color pink. Put them together, what do you get? The origins of a unicorn are rooted in empirical observation, and thus the materials gained from empirical observation (horse, horn, pink) were visualized by the imagination, mixed together, played with, and out came the pink unicorn.
