"Things don't exist", plus observations
Re: "Things don't exist", plus observations
It's on a need to know basis. Er, forget I said that. The plan doesn't exist.
Good Citizen Carl
Re: "Things don't exist", plus observations
Ok, this is something I already knew, but made “re-conscious†and maybe need to explore more.
Words are NOT the things spoken about. Abstracted categories like “book†or “pen†are practically useful for communication purposes, but are sloppy and potentially misleading because the definition of such categories can never include ALL the characteristics of even one particular example in the physical world/continuum. These books and pens should not be seen as things separate from the whole.
On the other hand, there are abstracted logical categories that DO, by definition, include ALL the characteristics or particulars within it. For example, the All, without exception, includes every thing. Though, the funny thing about the All is that it doesn’t have boundaries. Usually we talk about what a thing is by talking about what it isn’t, except in this case....
So, is this process of basically not naming things with “is†(realizing at root an evolving continuum) also the process of "using causality to undermine the illusion of inherent existence"? And is the only reason that I still see things as “objectively†there because I did not persistently apply this reasoning to everything and everywhere?
Also, would this constitute the “trees are not really trees and mountains are not really mountains†part of the zen saying?
Words are NOT the things spoken about. Abstracted categories like “book†or “pen†are practically useful for communication purposes, but are sloppy and potentially misleading because the definition of such categories can never include ALL the characteristics of even one particular example in the physical world/continuum. These books and pens should not be seen as things separate from the whole.
On the other hand, there are abstracted logical categories that DO, by definition, include ALL the characteristics or particulars within it. For example, the All, without exception, includes every thing. Though, the funny thing about the All is that it doesn’t have boundaries. Usually we talk about what a thing is by talking about what it isn’t, except in this case....
So, is this process of basically not naming things with “is†(realizing at root an evolving continuum) also the process of "using causality to undermine the illusion of inherent existence"? And is the only reason that I still see things as “objectively†there because I did not persistently apply this reasoning to everything and everywhere?
Also, would this constitute the “trees are not really trees and mountains are not really mountains†part of the zen saying?
Re: "Things don't exist", plus observations
The simplest thing refutes itself. The most complex thing confuses itself. The smallest thing bounds all other things.
There are no non-existant things, there is no non-existence. Things must exist, there is existence. Why trouble yourself with such questions when the answers cannot be avoided? Does the accumulation of knowledge deprive you of understanding? Does the persuit of questions deny you the ability to observe?
There are no non-existant things, there is no non-existence. Things must exist, there is existence. Why trouble yourself with such questions when the answers cannot be avoided? Does the accumulation of knowledge deprive you of understanding? Does the persuit of questions deny you the ability to observe?
Re: "Things don't exist", plus observations
?Steven wrote:The simplest thing refutes itself. The most complex thing confuses itself. The smallest thing bounds all other things.
Things exist in this moment, and no other things exist, I agree. And I suppose any content we put in "future existence" or "another's consciousness" categories would also be things of this moment.There are no non-existant things, there is no non-existence. Things must exist, there is existence. Why trouble yourself with such questions when the answers cannot be avoided?
I'm trying to experiment with my interpretation of those things that do exist. They have changed on me before.
I've never come across any interpreted thing that can't and shouldn't be questioned.Does the accumulation of knowledge deprive you of understanding? Does the persuit of questions deny you the ability to observe?
But you're right, I'd also like some answers. I'd like to focus on the clarity and slowing down of my thoughts. Sometimes they can be a bit fickle and fleeting, and I think I'm more capable than that. We'll see!