fresco wrote:
Quote:Since "objects" normally have "spatial location" as one of their "properties". the deconstuction of "locality" is significant as a step towards the deconstruction of "objectivity" itself. For what are "properties" other than "expected relationships between observer and observed...hardness, taste, colour, location etc all are based on potential interaction....without "the actor" AND the "acted upon" NO REALITY. Such a conjunction implies that "existence" is the sum of such interrelationships and that "things" do not "exist" outside "relationship".
I suspect that this spatial location is in itself non-dualistic, since it appears to be one singular notion, abstract and highly dynamic. I also believe that it is a thing we unconciously apply in maintaining coherency in our experience, and not a property of the experience itself at all.
I think it's the same with hardness, taste and color, since you bring them up.
Colors change as the light shed on them changes. Green of midday sunshine is not green of midnight moon. Though the same leaf held the same color at both times, a painter would use two different mixes to render the leaf.
So I believe that all this knowledge we accumulate about our reality are aspects that we ourselves bring to the table, and add to the experience in the processing. Dualism is a consequence of our subdividing the "pool" of information and categorizing it.
It may not apply to the "actual world", meaning that if we were able to bypass our senses, with QM for instance, the relationships we've established may not be meaningful at all.