But you can sensate non-existence — what about observing a hole in something? You are sensating a lack of solid matter in a portion of an object, and consequently your mind is making a distinction between existence and non-existence that it can observe.
I don’t need to make any distinctions in perceiving a single object. It is a direct perception involving the object and mind. Nothing else need to be involved.
Even a hole in something would be perceived as a hole rather than a hole in something. Because the hole is independently existing with no relation to something. If it is related to something, then it wouldn’t be a hole. It would be then a rabbit hole or watering hole. They are totally different objects from a hole.
You can make relations on the objects you see, but then you will not see the object as it is. You will get distorted perception and understanding on it from what the object truly is.
But when you perceive a single object, are you not perceiving the edges of that object, i.e. where existence ends and non-existence begins, and the distinction between the edges and middle of that object? By that you already have two relations — existence versus non-existence and edge versus middle.
The edges are (if existed) part of the object. No need to think about where non-existence begins, because non-existence doesn’t exist.
If non-existence doesn’t exist, how come objects have edges then?
To claim, it is the boundary of the existence.
But a boundary is a transition between two things, and in the case of an edge the thing it is a transition between is existence and non-existence, albeit often with a particular quality between the two (e.g. the ‘edge’ of an apple is its skin, which has special cells in it distinct from the flesh of the apple).
You shouldn’t think about the existence outside of the boundary, while perceiving an object. If you do, then it means your mind is getting distraction for some reason. It could happen due to not focusing at the object properly you were suppose to perceive or think about.
While you can easily ignore non-existence when just looking at an apple, what about after you take an apple corer to the apple and can see the hole left behind by the corer?
To me the only way you can perceive existence without perceiving any non-existence is by being deeply submerged in the sea, but not close the bottom and not within view of any fish or other sea creatures, so all you can see is water in all directions.
Even when you are looking at a non-cored apple, you can see areas of your vision where there isn’t an apple, and thus you can divide your field of view into areas of existence and areas of non-existence.
The hole on the apple is just a part of the apple.
What is the hole, though, if not non-existence made apparent by the contrast (i.e. relation) with the existing surrounding apple?
Let’s think about the hole on the apple. If you think about it, it is a space which took out part of the apple. It is not non-existence. It is still the apple.
So let’s take a different-but-related example. Let’s say we have two bins next to one another in the produce section at the grocery store. One bin is full of apples — it was just filled today. The other bin is empty — it did have apples in it, but people took the apples, bought them, and eventually ate them.
We can state that the empty bin is empty — this is an expression of non-existence, as the apples that were once in that bin have now been eaten.
We can also state that the full bin is full — this is an expression of existence, as it contains many apples that have not been eaten, at least as of yet.
Thus we can express the relation between existence and non-existence, or otherwise we could not say that the empty bin is empty.
Anyone can detect empty bin and non empty bin without having to make relations of existence and non-existence. It just take simple direct perception for that.
Trying to tie them with some relation and making it more complicated than necessary sounds illogical attempt. Philosophy is about making things clearer, simpler and understandable. It is not about trying to making things unnecessarily cloudy and complicated.
The relation comes into play because we know that at one time the empty bin contained apples. If the bin wasn’t in the produce section of a grocery store next to other bins containing produce, we would just typically say it was a bin rather than an empty bin. It is the contrast with the other non-empty bins around it that makes it empty.
No one needs empty bin to be able to tell non-empty bin and vice versa. If this is what introducing relation does, then it is obstructing one’s perception and thinking rather than helping to see the true reality.
We need relations to be able to perceive and understand the world. Even looking at a deep red Red Not-Delicious we can tell that the apple is not a bright green Granny Smith or some mutant blue alien ‘apple’ — the fact that we can tell that it is one color and not another is an implicit relation.
If it were not for this, we could not be able tell that we should reach for the Granny Smith and not the Red Not-Delicious when in the produce section without having read a sign marking bins of each as such.
We can perceive things quite well without relations. Keep brining in relations when not needed sounds like complicating what is simple direct perception in reality.
You are seeing all sorts of apples. But where is the relation you are talking about? It is nowhere to be seen. All you see are the apples.
Relations seem to exist in your mind, which I have no idea what it is about or how it looks like.
Hi Jin. I’m new here but I share your interest in Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka Buddhism and in Rovelli Relational Quantum Mechanics, so I made you my first engagement. I should say that I have no formal philosophy background so don’t take anything I say as guidance – I just share an interest. I regard these two figures as hilltops that give me two different perspectives on a landscape, but I would add another – William James’s Radical Empiricism seems very much in tune with these two. My investigations have unearthed something called Structural Realism that replaces our (my) Western default commitment to substance-based metaphysics with a relationship-based view. It divides into Epistemic (we can’t know that “things” are fundamental) and Ontic (we should entertain the possibility that relations are fundamental) forms, and Ontic Structural Realism further divides into Radical (there are only relations and no things) and Moderate (there are things as well as relations, but things have a “thin” form of existence) forms. The variant that I think fits my three thinkers is Moderate Ontic Structural Realism (MOSR), and in particular, “Things and their Relations” (I put that in quotes because it is the title of an essay by William James) might be considered “dependently arisen.” Rovelli’s Thermal Time Hypothesis is also interesting since it fits well with John Archibald Wheeler’s Participatory Anthropic Principle (Wheeler’s conclusion from his Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment is that history is being created by present choices – see his “It-from-bit” scenario and his explanatory analogy that takes the form a a variant of the game of Twenty Questions). Robert Griffiths’ Consistent Histories interpretation of QM exhibits a fascinating overlap with these other two physicst. All of this points in the same direction. Sorry for droning on but I’m just delighted to find somebody that shares my obsession.