/lit/ - Literature

>>11120418
>the objection you gave was that my position could not be reached purely through sense perception.
Right. I'm just wondering if this method can explain absolutely everything.

>a "distinct realm of existence" that is hierarchically prime and that our existence is entirely dependent on
Well, like I said, a non-dualistic prespective makes more sense to me, i.e. existence is neither of the more or less elementary realities but their relationship.

>Do you think this structure is objective?
Yes, but it includes subjective perception as part of it.

>>9683799
So basically:
- "Objects" have information in them.
- This information is depletable/consumable.
- An "object" only "exists" insofar as its information is imprinted on its surroundings.

I know this isn't properly formulated, but it's something like that, right?

the extent of what you know about quantum physics

>and nietzsche

The "greatest thinker of all", thought of as a thing in isolation, is an illusion born out of your own selfishness, in order for you to rob them of their perceived greatness: if the supposed great be the master, then he only matters for his disciples; if he be the disciple, he necessarily depended on there being a master. The thought of one man by itself is irrelevant--it's by its relationship to others' thoughts that it can gain any leverage--no greatness is factored in, no thing can be taken away without loss. All phenomena are dependant of and conditioned by the rest of existance, and lack an essence in themselves.

Now please try to ask more precise, more careful questions.