Nice discussion.

Its rather amazing how the notion that we're purely "reactive" strikes such a chord of discontent. I believe I see (and accept as correct) this notion since, but its definition, I cannot do anything which does not involve any other factors or elements (which would then put it in the realm of reactionism).

Hehe, almost feels like a self-professed/self-defined truth (an assertion whose constituent elements constrain/lead to only one conclusion, and is therefore of spurious value since it decides itself). Nonetheless...

I wouldn't equate acceptance of this notion to "everything's set in stone". Although I may react next Tuesday morning to an event, that event hasn't occurred (nor has many of its dependent factors, not yet). Cause and effect isn't linear; it is a tree with innumerable branches and tributaries that cross, collide and influence - most not visible to me. Or - perhaps a better way of putting it might be: I am on this path, I will hit a point 2 miles up where I'll make a reaction to a set of circumstances. Those circumstances are not yet staged. Thus, my reaction to that point can't really be said to be 'set in stone' - at least not yet. At that point? Sure... I could buy that, but there's an element of chaos/randomness we're not taking into account here (nope, not going there! :p )

... I think I just felt something in my head go *pop*. Time for asprin

Supposing we're all just reactions. Aspects. Small pieces in a giant form, composed of smaller shapes, moving down to curves at the lowest form. When nothing is left but the greater whole, with no names for the parts... a giant tree of pathways and flows, what name do we give it? If all envionments are part of it, and all reactions occur within it and there is nothing else, if it reacts and all reactions are of it's own making, what would we call it? If there is nothing but it, then do we call it consciousness, or is the ever unreachable consciousness forbidden because that which may demonstrate consciousness must be subject to the greater whole?

the day of Nihilistic reality, life is the focal point of reality, there is but one meaning standing after Nihilism is realized, and that is, that all of reality is relational

Is reality relational in the sense that everything is made up of values and these values are all related by us to a perceived scale?

Dan.

'Subject and object are relational, that covers all reality' quote
Well it's really Object and Object are realtional then... how are they relational?
By the constant of values? Dan,

I think we need two terms, reality which applies to the biological reality of subject - object. And actuality, the real reality of object-object that exists after we are gone.

Actuality is what needs exploring through our external relationship to it and the external relationship can be pin pointed by looking at how our sensual equipment operates as an analogue which interprets/distorts/converts actuality into reality...

reality seems to simply refer to our eyes and all our senses seem to end up exploring objects by visual scales/representations of object values, we let the illusion of sight distort our perception.

And I think all that after reading Arjen's blog .Dan

Khethil,

You can argue about the complexity of all reality but, if you are not reactiing in this very moment----------you sir, are dead.

Didn't dispute that... like... at all

de budding,

If your intent is to percieve ultimate reality without your given senses, good luck, ultimate reality in the absence of a subject/consciousness./awareness would be meaningless.

Khethil,

Yes, ok, my apology. Yes there is a bewildering assortment of choices available to one, and even historical happenings and situtations that influence ones choices, also antisapation for what may not be in the future. The one thing set in stone is you will react, even inaction to the considered object or situtation is by defination a reaction. So, not going to go there, that is up to you. as long as you are aware, it is a reaction.

Hey boagie, whats the difference, if there is any, between an 'action' and a 'reaction'?

seems to me like action is initiation while reaction is participation in the stage set by the action. Dan.

Hi de budding!!

:)First cause is a myth, reality is relational in its nature, reaction is the means of the transformation of forms into new relations.