Reality - thing or phenomenon?

So what exactly is changing, then?

I'm not sure why he even asked that question. Without the objects and subjects, there is no reality.

Olivier, you are right: it is not possible to speak of changes where no objects are involved, but that is only with reference to speaking/thinking a language with its own internal (subject-predicate) logic and assuming that "objects" have some kind of solid essence rather than being events or processes. Your realism is far too naive (in the technical sense of naive realism) for anything but the most rigid and conventional of formulations.

C.I., without objects and subjects there is no thinking and talking about reality. But why do you assume there is therefore no reality? Besides, you can experience, appreciate and enjoy "reality" without thinking about "it".

No. It's because objects and subjects do exist that makes reality a reality for humans and most living things. You don't even believe you exist in body, so why are you posting your opinions on a2k?

I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I'M INVOLVED IN SOME DISCUSSIONS ON THIS AND OTHER THREADS ON A2K. It proves my existence to myself and to those who believe as I do that communication is alive and well, and we can exchange ideas and opinions.

That's my "HUMAN REALITY."

So...ci has a "my reality" and a "your reality" and a "his/her reality" and a "human reality...

...but he cannot seem to wrap his mind around the notion that there is the possibility of a REALITY that IS what IS.

Apparently his "belief system" is so powerful, it hides the notion of a REALITY from him.

Hey...lots of belief systems do that to people. That doesn't make them bad guys.

Frank, Don't waste your time addressing anything to me; I have you on Ignore, and will not respond to you.

FACT: Your repetition of any idea does not make it true. JTT has the same ailment.

Oh, thanks for reading what I wrote and stopping by to tell me that you are ignoring me. That took guts.



Nope. The fact that it is true...makes it true.



Awww, c'mon, ci. We disagree and we bust each other's balls...but there is no need to stoop to stuff like that.

C.I., I have the same sense of subject and object and my body as you do, but my interpretation of their nature is different. They say that the zen taste and perspective has a great influence on Japanese culture. I'm sure that is so in some ways, i.e., the ancient arts such as painting, poetry, calligraphy, flower design, martial arts, etc. etc. But I also know Japanese people who think that zen buddhists are "flakes". What a shame--for them.

I don't see my wife as a flake even though she's a buddhist.

But is she a zen buddhist? I hope she is.

My wife is Koyasan Buddhist. The buddhist pilgrimage we participated in 2004 was visits to the temples in Wakayama, Osaka, Nara, Kyoto, Hyogo, Itami, Shiga, Lake Biwa, Himeji, Gifu, and Mt Koya - the home of the church.

How wonderful. She is a religious "traveler" just as you are in the geographical sense.

I see. Your irrealism is far too thick to be even thinkable.

A process or event can be considered an object -- no difficulty here. "Essence" is a word I leave to those interested in theology and ontology. But solidity is an important characteristic of some objects, I think. That's why you can sit or lean on some objects, that's how you can use them as tools (a liquid screwdriver wouldn't work very well). Denying the solidity of some objects is much easier than actually vaporising them through that thought... Like passing through a solid wall is much harder than talking of the theoretical non-solidity of walls...

But of course, that's only a problem for the realists among us, who stupidly think that our world view should account for experience and facts.

I think he used the wrong old fashioned wording when referring to "solidity" as being at the core of the problem, rather he should have used measure or ratio which places things as being either definable or undefinable...one thing I am certain without measure there is no sense of change...and that, all along, has been the point being made.

But there are measures and change. The past several seconds between your post and mine is the 'EVIDENCE.'

I feel that trying to get through to you--across "paradigms"--is like trying to communicate with religious fundamentalists. Impossible.
I'm curious, are you a fundamentalist?

Well Ci that's what I am advocating...

No, just a person who tries to account for daily experience. If such experience was pointing at the non-solidity of stuff, I would not stick to solidity.

Lets hear you account for that then !