Yep. You solved the puzzle. The thing outside of itself is you. Implied by the definition put forward in the OP as the view of yourself from the thing in itself. It simply terminates to how you think you look; implying the thing in itself doesn't add or subtract from ones perception because it doesn't exist by logical definition. A perception that isn't one falls into the set of things that do not contain themselves. It represents Russell's imaginary break down of logic.

Like, the set of possible things that will never occur. I can imagine there is something there, but I could never justify ascribing it to anything.

....an extension of a probable error, which would necessarily implicate itself as a probable error. — Mww

I agree.

Over my head. My propensity is to see things in black and white, that it's not possible to imagine anything completely impossible, technically speaking.

That by definition of something's being "possible" it must exist, or otherwise it's impossible.

But I really am not making the connection here of what you're telling me. I get that there's a breakdown of logic, but to me that's just the fundamental viewpoint of the observer, and we are not creatures dictated by pure rational thought on the subtlest level of simple being awareness.

But I really am not making the connection here of what you're telling me. I get that there's a breakdown of logic, but to me that's just the fundamental viewpoint of the observer, and we are not creatures dictated by pure rational thought on the subtlest level of simple being awareness. — theRiddler

But I really am not making the connection here of what you're telling me. — theRiddler

I'm demonstrating complicated nonsense is still nonsense. Philosophy seems to have cracks that let people imagine possible things that will never occur and even reason about them. It's my failure to articulate which is to blame for anyone's misunderstanding of this matter.

experiencing — emancipate

Makes sense. Although... If being experiences the being of being inside of the being experiencing the being of tbe being outside the being of being of being than it simply doesn't make sense anymore to say "to be or not to be". :lol:

Just wondering if there's a thing beside itself or under or above or behind itself. I suppose they all may be things outside itself, now that I think of it. Is there a thing itself, one that's neither inside nor outside itself, but merely a thing? In that case, there would be a thing inside itself, a thing, and a thing outside itself. I think there must be, because it otherwise makes no sense to use the word "itself" and maintain that for a thing there is an inside and outside. Three different things? Or three things different, but nonetheless a single thing, like the Trinity?

Just wondering if there's a thing beside itself or under or above or behind itself. I suppose they all may be things outside itself, now that I think of it. Is there a thing itself, one that's neither inside nor outside itself, but merely a thing? In that case, there would be a thing inside itself, a thing, and a thing outside itself. I think there must be, because it otherwise makes no sense to use the word "itself" and maintain that for a thing there is an inside and outside. Three different things? Or three things different, but nonetheless a single thing, like the Trinity? — Ciceronianus

Well, everybody is pretty sure there's a thing. That much seems familiar, but where it is relative to not your perception of it seems to keep expanding without a noticeable constraint other than the number of words for directions. Next thread, The least most south westernly thing near itself...to be continued.

That by definition of something's being "possible" it must exist, or otherwise it's impossible. — theRiddler

Actually, that's not really the definition of possible. It has to be an outcome that could occur. Before you flip a coin, it's possible heads or tails could happen. But, one of them won't. Hence, one is a possible outcome that will never occur in the context of the single event.

Actually, that's not really the definition of possible. It has to be an outcome that could occur. Before you flip a coin, it's possible heads or tails could happen. But, one of them won't. Hence, one is a possible outcome that will never occur in the context of the single event.

You're gonna have a hard time proving things could occur that never do occur.

Technically, only events which do occur were ever possible. It's easy to say something "could happen" -- just as easy as it is to lie, I suppose.

Technically, only events which do occur were ever possible. It's easy to say something "could happen" -- just as easy as it is to lie, I suppose. — theRiddler

Technically, only events which are possible ever occur.