@layman,
Quote:A tree "exists" if, AND ONLY IF, it is "observed" by a subject. As soon as the observer turns his head and looks in a different direction, the tree no longer "exists." If he looks back again to the same direction and if, then, he sees a tree (which he might not, ya know) then now, again the tree exists (but only for so long as it is being looked at).
There is no tree, no "thing." There is ONLY a perception of it. This is Fresky's "non-dualim." It a strict monism. There is no duality of subject and object, because ONLY subjects really exist.
Pretty sharp summary of Fresco.
Of course, the argument has holes left right and center. The central place given to Homo sapiens is inherited from religion and by now totally obsolete. Man in the image of God, participating to creation by naming stuff... Since Darwin, you would imagine that Man would have left His pedestal at the center of Creation...
It is now in the known that plants can sense their environment and themselves in way that are different from animals but very important to their survival. A tree perceives itself. It needs no Fresco for that. And if one doesn't subscribe to plant perception, how many thousands of animals of how many species live in, on, off or under that tree? Rodents by the dozen, birds by the hundreds, bees, caterpillars and zillions of others at the unicellular level... Many animals have eyes too. I suppose they use them to see, and watch, including trees and bits and pieces of tree. Bark. Trunk. Leaves. Flowers. That tree is a freaking world of perceptions in itself.
And that's only one of many holes...
