@fresco,
Nice try but I happen to be living in Madrid and have great access to Spanish language coaching. I mean it like this:"La mosca es" Now you resolve what that Spanish sentence means and you will find it means exactly what "The fly is" means in English. Now that you know what I mean you can look at what I am saying instead of how I am saying it.
Its a cheap dodge your trying between ser and estar. Both English and Spanish sentences refer to a fact. The fly is. You can't dodge it by referring to a language issue. The issue itself translates.
Unless you believe that the sensory apparatus of the frog has something to do with the existence of the fly which your words say. Do you really believe that how either a human or a frog perceives a fly matters as to how the fly itself is? Is that your theory? Or that somehow Spanish speakers don't agree with that independence? That their language is some how superior and can be brought in to defend the theory that the fly that the frog sees is not the fly that I see? You are missing the meaning of objective existence both in Spanish and English.
Objectivity is trans-cultural probably but at least it is across the US and Spain. I know this from direct interaction with Spanish engineers. They are extraordinary, and I assure you very competent and manipulating and describing objective models in English or Spanish. The experience of the fly by either us or the frog is a result of the fly, our sensory and cognitive apparatus and the intervening signals usually light. But the fly itself is not a result of our sensory and cognitive apparatus nor of the intervening signals. This is true in Spanish or English.
Purdurance? Warmed over Minkowski. I am not talking about how the object is conceived. Only in the idea of separation of causality into that which is natural and that which is external. For example in classical physics linear motion is natural and curved motion must be due to an external cause. Latter we reassigned the causality. My point is that the presence of objects cannot be due the the presence of objects in the past. Even a single object, whether conceived of as enduring or peduring and even if it is not changing, is not explained by what it. It still requires causality ex nihilo. That is what its "just being" refers to.
Perhaps you should consider that my explanation is unusual in that I am not kowtowing to anything. That is certainly not my intent. I do however believe that objectification exists - we are talking about it - because it is so overwhelmingly predictive of most of our experience. It is possible to imagine non objective worlds but ours is to a large extent objective. Only with very detailed examination are we beginning to see the extent to which objectivity does not describe our world. I think for example that boolean logic will need to be reformed and I do not think that there is a single image that can be constructed that describes the way things are.
It is not chauvinism or parochialism to see the meaning of objectivity and to recognize it as a valid description of a lot of our experience. The idea of abandoning the idea that a fly exists and is then, subsequently, illuminated, and then perceived by either the organism of a human or of a frog and substituting for it some idea of the frog somehow constituting a moving fly through its perception really botches a very good description.
The connection that Capra popularized is best understood by realizing that objectivity is, to some extent as determined by the careful observations of physics, a real aspect of what we are experiencing. The Tao is the fact of the experiencing itself. One should not conflate metaphysics with physics. They are not the same thing.
At first I saw a tree and it was a tree. Then I saw the tree and it was the Tao. And then I saw a tree and it was a tree.
You must get to the final step.
