Reply: A question of significance

I suppose one of the questions that inevitably must arise due to my work is how do I allow a rock to be a rock, and a tree to be a tree?
Rather than “allow”, for me, a tree is a thing and a rock is a thing. Here I mean only as physical things. The one category is undifferentiated and equal “thing”.
When the very manner by which I proceed to do my own work understands that there is some thing essential which connects the tree and the rock, some thing that allows the rock to be something a little less than a rock and a tree to be some thing a little bit less than a tree.

I do not “see” things become “less” but that, firstly, I have projected upon them values which are not there. And secondly, no matter how much I have projected upon the objects values they are still essentially unchanged (without values) as physical things, only that psychologically they have values which are of my object of the mind. In this way, I deal with both my objects of the mind and reality without compromising either.

Both have significance so long as I continue to perceive (or project values upon) them.

This is perhaps my version of AND.

One thought on “Reply: A question of significance

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s