Necessary Being (supreme reality) is not relative nor dependent on any-one or any-thing. For, such a reality or Being cannot not exist (it's existence is necessary) - and this has nothing to do with relations..
Hmm.. and how do you Boats and Hoes feel as supreme reality? Who are you, and what is you experience of this? Because the way I perceive reality is everything is co-dependent and relative to everything, leading to a ultimately relative view. No wave in the sea is it's own, no drop of water is the ocean.
1.) Right, how YOU perceive reality is relative and dependent; that doesn't mean reality itself only exists in relation to you or only relationally (you simply just experience what's 'real' relationally, relatively, subjectively). 2.) I'm saying the ocean itself is fashioned, and that the fashioner is neither dependent on the water nor on any of the drops.
Yes, however all phenomena are all in relation to each other and nothing else. In fact, nothing can be related to the ultimate, as ultimate by definition denies any relations. So in your world view, you see conditions and superlatives as being ultimately relative and real, but in the same view, you hold that 'something' exists and holds some sort of ultimate nature, unaffected by everything, much separate from the relativity we experience. So what is this 'something' to you? Does it have any qualities or is it nothingness? Further, what makes this 'something' exist? Is it just space?
1.) Are you suggesting all of reality is reducible to phenomena? 2.) Truth; for, truth in-and-of-itself and being in-and-of-itself are one and the same. P.S. Not ultimately relative - 'ultimately ultimate'. For, this ultimate (or supreme) reality or Being surpasses my subjectively relative appraisal of 'it'.
What is real does not change. Phenomena changes constantly, its looser than a goose. Therefore, phenomena has no lasting defined basis. A picture of a place will change, our ways of thought will change, there is nothing real or concrete to any of them since they are fleeting. The appearance of things being things is illusory, everything is absolved in purity, in the only one reality there is. Things are expressions of this reality, and lack much of anything to be able to properly call them things. All matter is made up of 99% space, yet in our language we don't account for the open nature of nature, exchanging energy through itself constantly. What is truth to you?
Truth is between the gaps. Truth is the 99% empty space. Except it is not empty. For it to be empty there would have to be nothing there. There is something there, just not what we think, or not we we're able to detect it to be. But it is there. Nothing is real as everything is internal. What we call objective is a special form of internal, sort of like a template you might say. A canvas where we can paint our perception of reality according to how we see and experience it. Believing that what we see is reality is where we come unstuck, and once that assumption is made, there's no stopping us from thinking we know something. How can we know anything when perception is all that matters?
truth is the fundamental substance of existence, commonly referred to as 'energy'. the singular thread of consciousness that encompasses all of reality, responsible for creating the endless amount of expressions as the universe expands or is absorbed into the void of nothingness for eternity.
Everything is relatively ultimate. I say this because everything is relative to everything, and the truth is that everything exists in some form or another, thus it is ultimate. Everything itself is ultimate and relative. Everything has a place in the ultimate objective reality and everything has a relatively subjective reality. I think this makes the most sense of all.
'Truth' deals with what IS. Now, stating that there is 'no truth' is a self-refuting position, for, that very person would be positing a truth statement with asserting the validity of such a phrase; so, we all presume that there's something or some existence that is 'beyond' us, but, that's not really the question. The question of 'truth' asks - what is, that is 'beyond'? Intelligence, accident, capricious change, cold mechanics, mind, matter, indifference, justice, warmth, emptiness - either hollow absurdity or eternal order? These are the questions of 'truth' and what is.. and there is not a shadow of change in - Truth. "Nor was it once, nor will it be, since it Is; now, all together -- One, continuous; for what coming-to-be of it will you seek? In what way, from where, did it grow? Neither from what-is-not shall I allow you to say or think; for it is not to be said or thought-That it is not. And what need could have impelled it to grow, later or sooner, if it began from nothing? Thus, it must either Be completely (ULTIMATELY ULTIMATE)or not at all."
Yes, phenomena is in eternal flux, constantly fleeting, changing, decaying and living.. yet, can this principal itself become subject to 'change'? Or, is this flux eternally law (static)? Also, if change is all there is, and we change along with the change, how can we ever consciously know that change occurs? We can think about and contemplate (reflect upon) 'change' precisely because something about us isn't changing with the change; ideas and concepts don't decay like carcasses do, i.e., they're not subject to linear time like the phenomenal flesh. "Whatever stability there is, it is produced internally. Things are constantly changing and moving around us all the time. If we look at the big picture, the landscape around us, remember it, and look again tomorrow, we can notice that the big picture has not changed. But this noticing of the big picture requires attention, intention, and a type of reflecting on the way it was yesterday, in order to establish that there is some type of continuity, permanence within the big picture. From this, we can assume that there is a such a thing as permanence, continuity, being, and we can produce unchanging principles. When we allow, that a symbol may have the same, unchanging meaning, despite the circumstances under which it appears, we create permanence. And this allows us to create the unchanging truths of mathematics and logic."
Who, or what is this "fashioner" you speak of? Why must there be a fashioner, and why must the ocean be fashioned?
Law fashions - and, imo, there is an aware Author of law. "Ideas, that is, SENSIBLE things, are said to be 'imprinted on the senses by the Author of Nature' - they are called 'real things'. When, for example, I open my eyes and see a piece of white paper, it does not depend on my choice that I see a piece of white paper, except in the sense that I can choose to not look in the direction of the paper and see a piece of orange cheese instead. In Berkeley's language the ideas or qualities which compose the piece of white paper are imprinted on my senses. I can, however, have images of things which I have seen, and I can combine images at will, to form, for example, the image of a unicorn. In ordinary language the piece of white paper which I see on the table is not called an idea, whereas we do talk about having the idea of a unicorn. But though in Berkeley's terminology the piece of white paper is spoken of as a collection or cluster of ideas, these ideas are not dependent on the finite mind in the same way that the unicorn is dependent on it. And thus there is room in Berkeley's theory for a distinction between the sphere of SENSIBLE reality and the sphere of images. This distinction is of importance; for as Berkeley insisted, there is an 'order of Nature', a coherent pattern of ideas which does not dependent on human choice."
You didn't answer my questions, you just pasted a Berkeley quote that is very, very vague lol. I only ask because I am genuinely interested in your answer, since I find the position you hold to be very peculiar, but also interesting if you will.
Imho, perception without conception is blind, and conception without perception is empty (at least that's what I believe, and it's not my opinion; Kant actually stated what I just wrote).
We can start up a pm if you like. For, I enjoy the Socratic method of dialogue, and in that way we can understand each other instead of you just trying to understand me. But, if not, I will try to answer your very extensive question (even though it may appear like a simple question).