I finished watching it. I mean the musts and necessarilies precede the whatever is, is, whatever ain’t can’t be – and so those must and necessarilies and “follows from” are what construct the whatever is is, whatever ain’t can’t be

I finished watching it. I mean the musts and necessarilies precede the whatever is, is, whatever ain’t can’t be – and so those must and necessarilies and “follows from” are what construct the whatever is is, whatever ain’t can’t be

I mean, I can see its power; he worked with the notion of the simplest of objects along with the notion of background – either existing or non-existing and he worked with the notion of a non-existent background without which there’s no discernment of change

• Like

   Foreground/background. I struggled with that for years. 2019 finally found something I could work with arbitrarily, reasoning it out.

  If foreground is 1 and background is 0, that’s two things. Shift the granularity of the division between and you can end up a lot of variety.

  That’d be perception. The reason for the granularity is that materials have granularity otherwise they don’t exist.

  ===

===

The reason for a separation between objects is because different objects have different properties and the distinction between the properties delineates the distinctions between two abutting objects

This all reads as an argument for the THICKNESS of all things, which I agree with, but I don’t necessarily agree with the notion of reality being constructed of SIMPLE SAME objects.

====

Nothing is truly separate; all is connected but not all things are the same.

===