So reality is actuality put into terms of human experience (ie, 'the leaf is green' as opposed to 'light waves reflect off the leaf...')?

I see no real difference. We might say the leaf is green, or we could go into more detail about the physical process of why leaves appear green. Either way, we rely on our human perspective to make the description. In the 'leaf is green case' we are describing reality in easy to understand terms which work well on our macro level, in the 'leaf appears green because of lightwaves, ect' case we are describing reality in more precise terms, reflecting a modern scientific understanding.

You say in actuality that subject-object is reduced to object-object, but are there really independent objects in 'actuality' or is the notion of object the result of our human perspective, which actuality is supposed to lack?

correct.


Because it completely relative, and why relativity is important.



Not quite, scientific understanding is on the way but the angle or perspective needs shifting slightly. By looking at our responses to the world as analogues we explore actuality with our mind (and express it in words and text) and start by identifying the raw data formats which we convert and interpret- it starts with the actuaity and ends as we convert and interpet actuality... it stops before 'we' come into it.



I thought the same things, so I started calling 'objects' value-hosts.

I'm confused, I better go read about potentiality... again.

Dan.

EDIT: 'Actuality is to potentiality, Aristotle tells us, as "someone waking is to someone sleeping, as someone seeing is to a sighted person with his eyes closed, as that which has been shaped out of some matter is to the matter from which it has been shaped" (1048b1-3).'
I see no contradiction, other than that I wasn't reffering to Aristotle's actuality in the first post. Also actuality as the raw and true fromat of reality still has room for potentiality, actuality is as subject to change as reality is, they are both completely relative to each other.

So in your scheme de budding, reality is actuality perceived by man.

If I understand you correctly, there isn't anything we can say about actuality other than actuality is, and when perceived by man is called reality.



Ah, but do values exist in actuality or are values men's perceptions and therefore aspects of reality and not actuality?

Also, what would host the value in actuality? Are we applying values to somethings in actuality or in reality?

A

B

Cracking questions

A: hmmm still can't answer this one... I'm thinking that value-hosts can be defined in actuality because the all share catagories... mass, dimensions and positioning or something to that effect... all reality-values are derived/converted/interpreted by the interaction of forces and radiation- maybe as well as other things I haven't thought of yet as well(this is where analogues come in aswell), on these categories. ...maybe raw-values which still need defining exist in actuality and reality-values are the derivations from the raw-values, and there is more than one way to convert or interpret the raw-values... e.g. positioning of territory is derived from smell in cats, but texture in human- fences, walls etc.

B: In actuality the the raw-values are the hosts and the reality-values are the objects in reality... make sense?

Dan.

it seems there is nothing we can rationalise actually. the very actuality we try to consider again is after all a part of our reality. to perceive things as such we may have to be rebirth as a cow, or aliens , or some matter.
honestly i might wanna reconsider the reincarnation of tibetan buddhism.