I believe that they point to the same thing, although the various doctrines about to are often different.
-
-
Right again.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
For the record I said that objects aren’t even objects, which is something quite different than saying they do or don’t exist. This mystery at the heart of objects (what anything actually “is”) can never be resolved—and to me that is wonderful.
-
Right, that was a good way to frame it. Objects aren't so much "objects" as they are events (the event being a particular combination of causes and conditions).
-
This is why I appreciated you and Kenneth's discussion re: the self/ego. Saying the ego doesn't exist (and yet somehow it must be destroyed!) is flawed. Understanding that the self is an impersonal event, rather than an object that is "me", is a more useful way to talk about it.
-
An event and in more traditional language, a view. The ego is an event and the false context in which other events are experienced and reified. It’s the reification that gets us in trouble.
-
Yes, instead of "this is happening", we reify the ego and it becomes "this is happening to me".
-
Yes, and also “this is me happening.”
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I like both of your positions because they don’t feed into the Kantian things as they are in themselves nonsense. Ultimate reality is not a useful topic. Cheers to you.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.