|
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduction to a new way of thinking.
|
|
Poster Handle
|
MutantMessiah |
|
Post Content
|
To that, I would add that "we" are everything in our perspective.
I don't want some people to get the idea that they are the center of the universe.
Your "I" is everything and not-you-in-particular.
Perhaps I'll discover a better way to explain it.
Quoting: Chaol Bwah? Are we not "technically" the center of our own (the one and only) universe (perspective)? When we say all that exists, does so within perspective. Then we say nothing need exist outside of perspective. We are kinda implying that all that exists is structured around your personal perspective with you like a fish eye lens at the center of it looking out into one of infinite directions all equally valid if only you could find the logic to perceive them. When I think of the "I" it seems to me it may be defined as the difference between all representations within a given perspective. Or the no-thing-substance that fills the void between all things in perspective. That is my understanding too. Maybe what is implied in Chaol's statement, is that the "I" is all and everything within perspective? This way, technically, there is no "center". In other words, placing myself at the center of my one and only universe, I see what I perceive around me as separate, forgetting that I am what I perceive. The table is "I", and so is everything else. Which is just a value resulting from a certain relationship. I am all values, so I am everywhere and all things within my field of perception (de-centered)."I" (lol) see where you're coming from, thanks! As I see it, the "no-thing-in-particular" that refers to itself as "I" is what perspective (all that "exists") is structured around. It seems useful to me, to see it this way. If we're dancing around saying some (no)things are more relevant in "perspective" to other (no)things. The (no)thing in perspective they're relative to, is that (no)thing identifying itself as "I". It's "I's" perspective. Although "I" is all encompassing and ever-pervasive within perspective, it illustrates itself to itself in a way that some aspects of it are relative and some not so much. With that being the structure of our perspective, the "I" (as the most relative aspect of perspective) is at the center which all (no)things are relative to in varying degrees. Glad to have ya back Ambra.  The bolded statement of Chaol's quote above threw me for a loop and prompted the "Bwah?". It made me wonder whether he was being serious, sarcastic or provoking discussion. I leaned toward the assumption he was "provoking discussion" to brainstorm about his "Perhaps I'll discover a better way to explain it".
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for copyright violation:
|
