|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 21:05:03 GMT
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. You are attempting to make it complex and complicated, by intellectualizing it. You are speaking in circular rhetoric, to make is sound more important than what it is. This also says something about you. It's also conceited, and yes, nonsensical. Many politicians sound this way too. Illusion is just what it implies, a projected image of something that can be seen as real, or a reflection of real, but ultimately is "unreal". Don't you just love that! How "unreal", is what we perceive as life?  |
|
