Relational Truths Mean Nothing

[Eodnhoj7]

A thing is a cognitive experience.

And what is a cognitive experience?

Given we can have cognitive experiences of cognitive experiences, as we are now when talking about cognitive experience, cognitive experience is self-referential. As self-referential there is no contrast, thus cognitive experience is indefinite.

[Eodnhoj7]

A thing is a cognitive experience.

A "cognitive experience," is certainly not nothing, but an experience is not an entity, it is an event. "Thing," usually refers to an entity, something that can be perceived. Perception, (seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting), is also an event, but it's not cognition and provides no knowledge. Animals perceive things, only human beings take cognizance of them. Cognition (i.e. conception) is the mental identification of that which is perceived by mean of language, a mental event requiring both volition and reason. Cognizance is just another word for knowledge.

Not sure how that can be described as a thing. A thing is what it is whether I or anything else is conscious of it or knows anything about it or not.

1. Given continuous change what we observe as a thing is an event. This leads to further confusion given a cognitive experience is an event as well. Not only that but observing a cognitive experience through cognitive experience reduces cognitive experience to a thing. This further leads to reality as an event within an event as an event so on and so forth. Under these terms "event" becomes obscure.

2. Given perception is an act of imprinting the imprint through the senses results in a memory thus is knowledge. We cannot make a complete distinction between perception and knowledge.

[Eodnhoj7]

["A "cognitive experience," is certainly not nothing, but an experience is not an entity, it is an event. "Thing," usually refers to an entity, something that can be perceived. Perception, (seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting), is also an event, but it's not cognition and provides no knowledge. Animals perceive things, only human beings take cognizance of them. Cognition (i.e. conception) is the mental identification of that which is perceived by mean of language, a mental event requiring both volition and reason. Cognizance is just another word for knowledge.
Not sure how that can be described as a thing. A thing is what it is whether I or anything else is conscious of it or knows anything about it or not.

RC,
Experience is knowledge is meaning. I would say probably that a thing is a compounded experience meaning having more than one element to it. To know something is to know it cognitively this is the only way to know something, thus a thing cannot be said to exist outside of cognitive knowing it. Science/physics states that ultimate reality is a place of no things, thus I would say, in the absence of a conscious subject there are no things. Things are cognitive experiences. This relates back to Schopenhauer's statement also that, " Subject and object stand or fall together." I say then that in the absence of a conscious subject there are no things just as in the absence of object there is no mind or conscious subject.
[/quote]

Given reality exists through boundaries and these boundaries compound upon further boundaries this self-referentiality necessitates consciousness. Now this leads to a little bit of a crux as I have stated elsewhere that self-referentiality is "no-thing". Under these terms consciousness is "no-thing". As "no-thing" consciousness is indefinite and we see this indefiniteness in the fact that consciousness receives imprints from that which it observes. In receiving imprints this necessitates a formless nature to it otherwise it would not be able to receive a pattern.

[popeye1945]

A thing is a cognitive experience.

And what is a cognitive experience?

Given we can have cognitive experiences of cognitive experiences, as we are now when talking about cognitive experience, cognitive experience is self-referential. As self-referential there is no contrast, thus cognitive experience is indefinite.

Your apparent reality, your everyday reality is experienced through the body, it is through the body that you cognitively come to know the world. The changes effected by the world upon your body creates for you a biological readout of what is out there relative to how it affects/changes you, the knowing of these effects is cognitive understanding.

[Eodnhoj7]

A thing is a cognitive experience.

And what is a cognitive experience?

Given we can have cognitive experiences of cognitive experiences, as we are now when talking about cognitive experience, cognitive experience is self-referential. As self-referential there is no contrast, thus cognitive experience is indefinite.

Your apparent reality, your everyday reality is experienced through the body, it is through the body that you cognitively come to know the world. The changes effected by the world upon your body creates for you a biological readout of what is out there relative to how it affects/changes you, the knowing of these effects is cognitive understanding.

"The body experiences reality" leads to "the bodily experience of bodily experience" and we become indefinite again.

Dually:

The body comes to know the world, the world changes the body with the body in turn changing the world relative to the changes to world impresses on it; it becomes indefinite as the dichotomy between body and world dissolves.

[popeye1945]

Subject and object stand or fall together, this means, take away one and the other ceases to be, subject and object can never be separate entities.

[Eodnhoj7]

Subject and object stand or fall together, this means, take away one and the other ceases to be, subject and object can never be separate entities.

In stating "subject" then "object" you are creating separate entities.

[popeye1945]

Subject and object stand or fall together, this means, take away one and the other ceases to be, subject and object can never be separate entities.

In stating "subject" then "object" you are creating separate entities.

This separation of subject and object in discussions in philosophy is just a connivance to understanding everyone realizes they cannot in fact be two separate entities.

[Eodnhoj7]

Subject and object stand or fall together, this means, take away one and the other ceases to be, subject and object can never be separate entities.

In stating "subject" then "object" you are creating separate entities.

This separation of subject and object in discussions in philosophy is just a connivance to understanding everyone realizes they cannot in fact be two separate entities.

Then if this "wrong doing" is necessary then the separation is necessary.

[popeye1945]

The separation is a tool for understanding the relationship between the two because the relationship is apparent reality and in philosophy, people try to understand what their reality is. This does not make the separation real, it is categorical thinking which just means its a convenient tool to use.

[RCSaunders]

1. Given continuous change what we observe as a thing is an event.

I think you are mistaking the fact that in the dynamic universe there is only change for the assumption nothing has permanence. In fact, it is only what does not change that actually exists. The fact of constant change does not exclude duration. If you want to think of the behavior of things as change, fine, but when the change is constant and unchanging itself, it becomes duration. The "events," described as an atoms are things because the event is unchanging and constant, resulting in attributes that are permanent, the attributes of unchanging physical elements.

2. Given perception is an act of imprinting the imprint through the senses results in a memory thus is knowledge. We cannot make a complete distinction between perception and knowledge.

That's just made up nonsense and has nothing to do with either perception of knowledge.

[popeye1945]

Change and temporality are the only things in the world guaranteed, all things are temporal.

[Sculptor]

Now on to a further question, which I will repeat:

"What are these "things" which relational truths point to?"

or better yet "what is a thing?"

If you don't know that then you have no argument at all.

You are avoiding answering the question. If "relational truths mean nothing" are false then "relational truths mean something". What is this "thing"?

The idea of a "thing" is non problematic. We all have learned to live with the idea from the context given by language. You seem to have lost connection with the most basic human understandings. Your posts are confused, diffuse, self defeating and generally meaningless, even to yourself.
If you do not know what "thing" means then use a fucking dictionary. If you have a problem with the definition then do tell us why.

[CHNOPS]

The knowledge has it limits, because it is compare A with B.

if the all universe is A, then, you cannot compare it with another B.

But that doesnt mean that then A is nothing.

A is that thing, that we cannot describe more than saying "it is what it is", but is still a thing.

We can make B the past of A, and then only know that "are diferents", so, we can say that A is temporal, it changes.

But nothing more. And is still a thing.

The only no-thing is God, but this statement is always irracional when you say it.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Given continuous change what we observe as a thing is an event.

I think you are mistaking the fact that in the dynamic universe there is only change for the assumption nothing has permanence. In fact, it is only what does not change that actually exists. The fact of constant change does not exclude duration. If you want to think of the behavior of things as change, fine, but when the change is constant and unchanging itself, it becomes duration. The "events," described as an atoms are things because the event is unchanging and constant, resulting in attributes that are permanent, the attributes of unchanging physical elements.

2. Given perception is an act of imprinting the imprint through the senses results in a memory thus is knowledge. We cannot make a complete distinction between perception and knowledge.

That's just made up nonsense and has nothing to do with either perception of knowledge.

1. All durations result in further durations thus even the duration is an observation of change as the duration has a beginning and end point. To observe any commonalities between phenomena is to observe a repetition of said commonalities. This repetition is alternation of said commonalities and as repetition is conducive to being said "the thing changes". Why? Because repetition results in a new time and space much in the same manner the repetition of an atom, from point A to point B, is to observe one thing existing in multiple new times and spaces as the position. This new position results in a new identity thus perpetual change.

2. False, perception and knowledge are inseparable as knowledge requires memory and this memory is the subjective angle through which something is observed. One cannot separate subjectivity, ie perception, from knowledge.