So there's no interaction without change.
Taking it to another level, are there any interactions at all?
How is it possible for something to move? I intuitively sense that movement is impossible. I mean, how does a thing get from one position (or moment) to the next and retain its integrity?
I suspect it's true what Buddhism says, that the observable universe is in constant vibration. Movement is an illusion, illustrated quite nicely by a filmstrip, which consists of a series of stills. As awareness observes one frame (moment) and then the next in rapid succession there is an appearance of movement, interaction., time etc.
Twyvel
Given that "time" is a psychological construct, then "change" could certainly be called "an illusion" in your sense of the word. So in this "timeless unchanging universe" there is nothing to say. Our discussions are merely "a pointing finger" and some of us mistake the finger for its target.
However, what such images CAN bring is a re-evaluation of words like "knowledge" and "truth" which turn out to be tools in our efforts to "control change" - perceived "successes" being acclaimed as "facts".
fresco
How can change be controlled if the controller is part of the change?
...I did not say that "control" was "real" only that "efforts" were made in this direction and "successes perceived". The "timeless universe" tempers our evaluation of such "activities". As Krishnamurti said this "striving to become" or"striving to do" obscures "real truth".
Quite right. Effort works against its self, as you simply cannot become what you already are. Oh the paradox.
Knowledge is valuable up to a point and maybe this is the point. It's just that it has to be stated over and over and over again, as the ego, the doer of the world constantly exerts itself, rearing its head into action when action is the antithesis of its inevitable goaless goal.
The world is for doers.
I don't particularly care if any of these observers are observable - I'm only asking if they are observers. I would think it would be obvious that we can only observe the outside of a person and not their consciousness. (Likewise, color is a part of the outside that is observed, and not the inner nature of any given object, btw.) Since all objects are effected by nature, wouldn't they all be observers of it?
Rufio
The answer has been given.
If YOU require a universe of "objects" and "nature" existing independently from the existence of, and classification by humans then good luck to you !
I don't require it, fresco, I think it's the most likely of anything. If there were no classifactions, everything in the world wouldn't be the same - it'd all be different.
"Similarity and difference" are two sides of a coin.
Any "two things" are necessarily both "the same" (they are objects for comparison) and "different" (there are two of them). This mutuality is "forgotten" by the observer who focusses on one or the other pole for particular needs.
truth
Twyvel and Fresco, I've been following your comments--so intelligent and insightful. I'm too slow today to make meaningful contributions. After I'm rested and re-read them, I'll try.
BYW, Rufio, your contributions are far from dumb, but they are, to my mind, profoundly wrong-headed, but it is a failing shared, unfortunately, by most of the world. I WOULD like to see you carry your intelligence to a more sophisticated paradigm of realilty. Sorry for my arrogance here.
