Magritte’s picture was a statement about representations as being not the thing.
The question is whether the representation is a thing or not.
You are saying yes. I am saying no. Can we agree upon this before we start again?
This is a picture of a pipe
Please stop commenting. Use posts. I cannot reply to these.
LikeLike
…. i’m just saying that the entirety of myself, all my thoughts, everything that I can think, everything that I can know, everything that arises does so in the universe, and it exists.
Sure, now we can go on and qualify, well, what type of existence is this? Or what the different types of existence is could be used for. Maybe some type of existence is can’t be used for anything but telling children stories.
Maybe some type of existence is aren’t used for anything but merely “exist“ without any use whatsoever.
Maybe other things are like Marxist material where we use everything.
I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not even able to comprehend or entertain anything that arises outside of the universe. And therefore everything that exists exists in the universe, the universe is the definition of what exists; maybe that’s a better way to put it.
Yes, in reality I do have to negotiate various things that are physical as opposed to imaginary. But all of those things arise within the universe and therefore exist. They are all a part of the condition that is me in the world. As well as you, as well as everything that exists. Including unicorns.
LikeLike
But anyways, it is back to the “and”
Yes, it is just a picture of a pipe, it is not an actual pipe. Yes, the picture of the pipe does not actually exist as the pipe, the picture of the pipe exists. Yes.
And, if I was to point to the picture and say what is that, probably much of the time the answer would be that’s a pipe. So the paper exists. Whether it’s a picture or whether it’s some thing I’m smoking out of or whether water is running through it. It’s a pipe that’s what it is. The thing in the universe.
I’m not really sure how my mind is able to grasp something that exists outside of the universe.
The only way that I could do that would be to limit what the universe quoteactually is”. And I think this is what you try to do by saying physical things are the actual universe.
I get that. I’m not saying that I don’t understand what you’re saying or then if I walk out I don’t hit my head on a tree actually.
But I’m saying if that’s a particular closure, a bracketing for a particular agenda, a particular project that we call “humanity“.
But it seems like no one feels like they have to admit that. They all have to kind of figure that they’re talking about the actual whole universe that human beings are separate from somehow somehow human beings have an ability to be separate from the universe. And I don’t even know how that could be possible. I’m not sure how it could be possible that I could have any sort of idea about anything that is not arriving in the universe has something that exists.
??
Like I said, the only way for that to happen would be to limit the universe to particular things. And then that divides me. That makes me think that something is wrong with me. And then we could bring up the whole history of Christianity if we wanted to and talk about how they’re talking about the same very issue that we’re trying to fit into “science” or “actual reality”.
LikeLike
The thing is a thing. To say it’s a representation of a thing, it is still a thing called “a representation of a thing”.
LikeLike