|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 8, 2022 22:05:46 GMT
1. One senses that one senses. 2. Sense becomes self referential and without contrast therefore without form. 3. Formlessness is unable to be sensed thus one cannot sense that they sense, 4. However we only know of sense through sensing it.
1. Everything is senseless. 2. This is sensed.
1. Everything is sensible.
2. Sensible means anything considering it is everything, thus is non-sense.
1. There are empirical senses. 2. These empirical senses are sensed by the mind through the abstraction of memory. 3. The memory becomes empirical as it exists through the actions it directs. 4. Sense is both abstract and empirical even though abstract/empirical depend upon contrast as opposites.
1. Reality does not exist beyond the senses. 2. We sense the senses but no-thing exists beyond the senses. 3. In sensing the senses we know the senses exist. 4. In sensing the senses "sense" we sense everything as reality does not exist beyond the senses. 5. The sensing of sense leaves sense as self-referential and without comparison (as only sensibility exists) thus sense is no-thing. 6. In sensing sense we sense no-thing. 7. Considering reality does not exist beyond the senses and the sense of "everything as the senses" we are left with reality as no-thing. 8. Reality does not exist beyond the senses but the senses are nothing; reality does not exist beyond nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 10, 2022 16:48:41 GMT
This is very helpful for me. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 10, 2022 16:49:50 GMT
Why do you think 'sense' has an onymous and sometimes is using as "meaning"? Like in this phrase "this makes no sense"
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 10, 2022 22:18:38 GMT
Why do you think 'sense' has an onymous and sometimes is using as "meaning"? Like in this phrase "this makes no sense" Because sense, like meaning, directs us. Under certain contexts both become synonymous.
|
|