|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 13:29:18 GMT
The distinction is an illusion/non-illusion distinction. That is unavoidable if we're saying that something is an illusion. Otherwise what are we saying about it when we say that it's an illusion? There is NO distinction, when there is NO separateness which is what you appear to be in conflict with. Now what is the point you are attempting to make here? So what are we saying about something when we say that it's illusory. There's no non-illusion. So what properties are we picking out? Why even note that something has a property where no contrary property even exists or is conceivable? It would seem that the word "illsory" or "illusion" adds nothing to anything we apply it to in that case. It would just be nonsensical, like the following: Joe: "Smordy concept." Bob: "What's a smordy concept?" Joe: "Everything is smordy." Bob: "Well, what's non-smordy?" Joe: "There is no such thing." Bob: "So what are we saying when we say that a concept is smordy?" Joe: "Everything is smordy. There's no distinction." We could expect Bob to have no idea what Joe is even talking about. |
|
