Division of Objects

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by YEM, Feb 12, 2011.

  1. When looking at a chair, is there really the object of the chair or is it a hallucination of the mind subdividing reality into parts? If its a bi-product of the mind, then what truly is other than Self?
     
  2. #2 dirtydingusus, Feb 12, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2011
    there is really a chair there....

    just like you are really breathing air.....;)


    the only illusions are the ones you create yourself


    these can be influenced by many things....


    just as the tree was influenced by the craftsmen
    to become the chair....



    it had first convinced itself to become a tree and grow to the sky

    it was doing just fine with its own illusions....

    and now that it has been bent by the influence of the craftsmen....

    it is under the illusion that it was always meant to be a thing for people to sit on....


    ~be careful whos illusions you accept...
     
  3. You're the same thing as the chair. All is you. Or none is you, as the buddha seems to have preferred to put it.
     
  4. i think are minds get a good idea of what things are , we see a good ammount of colors , we can feel the edges and texture of things , see them clrearly 'most of the time' hear them smell them taste them , idk pretty good idea of shit if you ask me

    its true though that all of are senses control are perception but idk where you had that lead to the "there is nothing but the self" concluion?
     
  5. Like someone already said, there is really a chair there.
    You can separate the parts on your own: leg, back piece, butt piece, etc.
    If you separate these things, it is no longer a chair. do you understand?

    If I am you, then why do I not believe this? :laughing:
     

  6. Because "me" is never the same thing in two instances or places.
     
  7. Explain because I still don't understand this whole Unitarian thought process
     

  8. There is only one thing. That one thing is the process of change. That's all that exists. Change. The process that is change. That makes up everything. We're all the same process of change.
     
  9. So I don't exist? That's disheartening. Where do you get your "facts" from?

    I believe there is One thing, One thing being God. But you probably already know this. I used to think the way you do when I dropped alice and ate mushhys but my thought process has changed after being sober for a while :)
     

  10. The chair is, just as you are.
    There really is the object of the chair there but at the same time it is also a "Hallucination" as you put it. It would be impossible to perceive reality without dividing it into recognizable parts.
    So in that sense there is a permanent mist between one's perception of objects and the actual "objects," ... there are no objects when you look at something without a mind. So this mysterious mist is a bi-product of the mind, not the actual object. Meaning everything truly is.
    Don't you just love the way I explain this shit. <Insert sarcastic smiley>
     

  11. I think it's both. I also think it's not wholly a by product of the mind.
     

  12. It doesn't matter what you call it. God. Change. Love. Whatever. It's all talking about the same thing. Don't create division when it's unnecessary.
     
  13. It does when you say I don't exist because of it.

    And can you show me where you get these facts from? because I have a hard time believing some dude on the internet
     

  14. where did i say you don't exist?
     
  15. I exist

    if you can't reference then I can't believe it
     

  16. Right. You're change. Are you the same person you were when you were born? No. cuz you change. You're change.

    And I don't care if you believe it. Whatsoever. I don't know where you got that I was trying to convince you of something
     
  17. I change, I am not change. There is a difference.
    I didn't think you were trying to convince me. I tried to believe you, but I just can't.

    edit; i was being open-minded
     
  18. When you can't understand someone, try expanding the set of your doxastic alternatives.
     
  19. I was and I did.

    But if someone can't refer me to something that supports this idea by challenging it, I disregard it as truth. I'm not saying this is intelligent or the right way to do it, I'm saying that personally I tried being open-minded to the idea
     
  20. It's just because you see duality. I don't. I cannot be anything other than everything. No words can describe the truth without taking away from it. God, if you will.
     

Share This Page