"Look at the fish swimming about,” said Chuang Tzu, “They are really enjoying themselves.” “You are not a fish,” replied the friend, “So you can't truly know that they are enjoying themselves.” “You are not me,” said Chuang Tzu. “So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?

The way we generally view, and thus speak, choose, act, re Israel and Gaza, is not open, and authentic, but autonomously driven by our collective Language. To simplify, look at some Signifiers we are fixated on with obvious triggers in the manifest world (i.e., triggering feelings, feelings to ideologies to choices/action): "terrorist" "anti-semitic" "genocide". It is obvious how, on their own, these go through the process whereby they ultimately trigger choices and actions.

The point I'm trying to make :

Because the Language of things like Human Rights, International Law, Foreign Occupation, Authoritarian, Fascist, trigger us in specific ways, more functional approaches to Gaza cannot arise.

Take Israel's response to October 7, and Hamas. Assume, as I'm willing to, that God help them, they're defending themselves against a brutal enemy. They swear to God, they're trying to adhere to international law. It's a challenge. You try and do better.

But 21,000 children dead; and countless others, owing to physical injuries and mental trauma, might wish they had died.

So, really? Because collectively we are fixated on the Language of International Law, we cause Israel to have to behave like a nation state, use a recognized military, and only bomb, occupy, mop up, all the while doing their best not to harm civilians, while openly, we accept that there must be such casualties.

What?

Because we are fixated on words like, Authoritarian, foreign occupation, and fascist, Israel cannot have done what likely would have saved 21000 children, and countless others, including, their homes, and billions in reconstruction. They couldn't do what El Salvador's guy did. Call Hammas criminals. Send in an army of police to round up anyone even smelling like Hamas. Enter their properties without a warrant, search and even rip shit up. Give them quick and basic trials, the clearly innocent will be released. Everyone else, the death penalty.

Our fixation on Language makes that sound abhorrent. And I agree. It sounds abhorrent. But note, even when the police are ripping shit up, arresting grandpa, and even shoving grandma around, to get her out of the way, no child is really harmed.

And the conventional way; the way so far, endorsed--with obvious cognitive dissonance--by the entire liberal democratic world, openly accepts that children will be harmed. And guess what? They are. But 21000 children? How's that better than a police state rounding up criminals without regard for their civil rights or due process?

While I dread both, if forced to choose, give me a police state over the massacre of the innocents.
...


Wait.


?



Nah.

We could have come up with a whole different numbering system than the one we have now. — L'éléphant

I agree. I noted in a You Tube "documentary" recently that there is a tribe in the Amazon that counts by 2s. Was that embedded? I think math, like Language, and everything else accessible to human mind/experience is a posteriori constructed by Mind and accepted if functional, rejected if not.

Palestinians could surrender totally and unconditionally to Israel in exchange for peace?
How many children are YOU willing to sacrifice — neomac

:up:

I realize you don't speak for Israel, but if that's the price to pay to save the children, while I personally might be willing to pay it, is that not a brutal ransom to exact? Palestinians, in your own words, must surrender totally and unconditionally to Israel to save the children?

As I've said before, all judgement aside, there are functional ways to approach this tragedy and there are dysfunctional ways. Hamas can be the monsters that they appear to be, and still, that doesn't mean the ransom you offered would be helpful, let alone justified.

Don't you think?

Nice. Thank you!

As for Sartre, since @Gnomon references him, yes, Consciousness is supported by a Being which is not itself. But contra Sartre, that Being is the Organic Being, the human animal.

What Consciousness is, is the system of autonomously moving images which displaces the Organic aware-ing of that Being, with the former’s constructions, empty of Real Being, and fleeting, Fiction.

The Dialectic that Sartre observed goes beyond Subject and Object, Self and Other. Like Freud, Sartre was astute enough to observe a Dialectical dynamic to Consciousness, but fixated on the most obvious Dialectic accessible to one in pursuit of an existential or phenomenological Ontology: subject/object (just as for Freud, in pursuit of Neuroses, the Sexual Conflicts were most manifest).

But dialectic is not limited, in Consciousness, to Self and Other. All of Mind moves through a dialectic; Signifiers autonomously competing to be heard, only surfacing at the arrangement most fitting for that specific locus in an individual Mind, and the locus of that Mind in History, or Universal Mind.

Even when my Body’s vision (sensation) is directed at a mundane cup; it does not “see” the Real “object,” like an equally intelligent animal might see; or, rather, it does, but there is no “object,” only see-ing and what Natural response see-ing might trigger. But with Mind, too quickly for that see-ing to be organically felt and responded to by that Real Body in aware-ing, Mind has already begun its Dialectic: Signifiers compete, and the Signifier arrangements most functional, for a given locus, surface to the aware-ing, displacing the Real Organic aware-ing with the "text", and triggering, à la Classical Conditioning, the Body to feel and or act in response to that fiction (all the while receiving those Signifiers in Narrative form, believed to be experience.).

And, only following that process, not Real, not disclosing itself to us as Real Being, but fleeting, and fictional, do I perceive that Signifier chain which won the Dialectic Dance and surfaced to Body, preassembled with belief, as that commonly shared object we call “cup.”

What is the human condition? Shit that just happens. But the point that Heidegger, Sartre, Arendt and so on are desperate to make is, ironically, right in front of our noses. We are authentic beings, not when we construct authenticity, or reflect upon what it is to be the Being of beings, or when we allow Being to disclose itself in authentic choices etc. All those things are sincerely admirable ways to follow the Narrative, just like Altruism might be, or for some, heroic sacrifice. They feed History, and thus inevitably, all of Human Consciousness (to wit, you and I). But what's already in front of our noses is we are authentic Beings, our Body is. To be that authentic Being, just be. If any details need be provided, it would be: breathe, eat, reproduce.

But, trapped in our Narrative world, we hate that idea and end up constructing bullshit out of Dialectic. And believing it. Like this.

there is almost no reason we "must" do anything. — schopenhauer1

I'll chime in further, later on, but for now, referencing your statement above, yes: not only is there almost "no reason" to do anything, but there may even be value in doing "nothing" as Heidegger implies, and certainly, as is required by Zazen. Albeit impossible due to our "entrapment" in the chattering of Fiction, there may be timeless moments where we might get a glimpse into our Natural, Organic, and Real aware-ing, by doing, so-called nothing, and thus, returning to that aware-ing

Having looked more closely at Heidegger, I get why you say,

Heidegger considers this classical understanding of being to belong to metaphysics, whereas his fundamental ontology overcomes metaphysics. — Joshs

But I think he shirks metaphysics, rather than overcoming it. He pretends to be doing a Classical, pre-Socratic even, ontology, an inquiry into the Being of beings, but ends up constructing his beautiful piece of architecture on par with Kant and Hegel, about Dasein, the Being of the everyday human being. And I admire it and find it useful, even liberating from some of the fixations of previous phenomenology, but I still have my concern that far from overcoming, he fell short.

Had he said, this is an "Ontology" of Human Mind, how (this mechanism of) being is constructed by it; how it constructs Time, and Handiness (and, he could have added, Logic and Reason); for their function how it is passed on in the form of History, input into every offspring, so that we are born already thrown into its world; how each particular, each individual instance of it partakes simply by being there; had he said that (which I submit, though over simplified here, except for the opening, he did, and a lot more like that) but just added, but don't ever think I am doing an Ontology of Real Being. That's not possible; any effort I make is already coming from that magical make-believe place of being thrown into a world of ready- made(s). That best I could do is give you back that world, rearranged and reconstructed so that you understand that; that afterall is all we really care about; we don't care about Truth (still my hypothetical H speaking); had that qualifier, which I believe he was conscious of, been included... Why does it matter besides the joy of the puzzle? Because if we think H or anyone has done anything other than reconstruct out of what is already there, we are at risk in believing Mind can, contra Socrates, actually know, and the many manifest problems with that....

Any so called Ontology of "Real" Being (which term and concept is itself, admittedly already a ready-made, so don't even start, Socrates), any inquiry and answer to an inquiry into Truth, can only be in be-ing.

Yes, accept that, I don't think Sartre's authenticity was Real in the ultimate sense. I think he knew he was providing instructions, not on how to "attain" authenticity as in Reality, or Truth. But how to make the Narrative authentic within the inescapable Truth of its ultimate inauthenticity.

What do you think?

A ton more can be said, but for now, just one more thing. It's not like we have any way out. Although Nature did not construct Mind, and it is Fictional, it is precisely that which has seemingly permanently alienated us from Truth: organic, natural reality. Even as I write this the intuition arises in each of us, the mechanism of belief built into the structure. I hear that voice whispering, "you mean Truth is those meaningless organic drives? "F" that then, give me the Fiction." See? We construct meaning, Arendt. We don't discover anything.

Not directly addressing the preceding discussion, but I feel it noteworthy to highlight that Human Mind, as differentiated from organic consciousness (simplified as the aware-ing which bodies--even unicellular and plants--do to varying degrees) necessarily includes self-consciousness, or the mechanism of the Subject in action. And sure, Arendt makes a worthy point, as do Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre et. al. all the way down to the daisies, and we too, with our intuition (also built in, the mechanism of belief) to "bury" the Truth about human Mind being Fictional in structure and nature, and construct some (more) positive meaning out of what's present to their recent reflections. But besides the eloquent ways in which Arendt, Et. Al. construct their meaning, their is nothing noble in it. It's actually what we do with the Fiction (Signifiers structuring Mind) all the time: construct meaning. Simple eg. body organically is presently paining; Mind constructs "I stubbed my toe," out of the autonomously moving Signifiers available; the pronouns so assimilated into the Narrative which Body is fed, that its mechanics as signifier of (usually, but not always) Body is ordained with belief, and we "think" there is this poor I who stubbed its very own toe.

My point with respect to Gnomon's obviously great point, is that what Arendt and (I'm thinking most post Kantian) other Western thinkers are addressing is the ever present intuition that Mind is a Fiction. And that surfaces as a double edged sword. On the one hand, oh shit, Mind is Fiction. On the other hand, that means there are astronomical possibilities.

If Mahayana, and particularly Zen, falls under "esoteric," then, I think, simply put, the whole idea is to "transcend" philosophical thinking. What is the sound of one hand clapping must necessarily abstain, not only from logic, but from any "form" of "discursive" or other "conventional" "thinking" or "problem solving."

"If God were to hold all Truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left only the steady and diligent drive for Truth, albeit with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process, and to offer me the choice, I would with all humility take the left hand."
---Gotthold Lessing

Not necessarily because I would do the same, but because I think that encapsulates the human struggle in matters of philosophy. And not out of humility, but more the opposite. Presumably, Socrates told his disciples the Truth about the futility of pursuing knowledge, but Plato went off pursuing anyway. Cant blame him. It's what we do. We displace the "God given"* Truth with our constructedKnowledge.
*I don't mean scripture nor revelation. I mean we are already the Truth. Like every organism, the Born Truth.

AND

"Not the wind, not the flag. It is the mind that is moving!"
---Huineng, the 6th Chinese Patriarch of Chan

For reasons which I cannot disclose. And I mean literally cannot; not, "not at liberty to".

Yes. Worrisome and likely true. Again, not saying I support Hamas. Nor am I saying I oppose Israel's right to defend. I was too careless in the comment you quoted. My point was and remains: care should be taken, especially in matters of intense conflict, with the Language we use. Obviously, that goes for me too.

Ok. I don't wish to argue that all of the middle east shares our western values. But you have provided info on Saudi Arabia. A state by the way, both the west and Israel are eager to make friends with. That does not tell us that the entire middle east is the same. Nor that Palestinians, if given self determination would follow suit.

But truly, I get your perspective, even respect and share your contempt for sexism etc.

I'm just saying. . .

Ok, great. You're not advocating for genocide. Which countries in the middle east force women to wear burqas, force them to be escorted by men and are abused by their husbands, by the way? I mean, if that, as you cited, is a good reason for Israel to clear out the rat's nest. Do the North African countries do that? Does Syria, Lebanon, does Occupied Palestine? Jordan? Iraq? Are burqas legally required in these countries? Is abusing wives condoned in these countries? Are there laws in these countries requiring women to be escorted by men? I mean, excluding the gulf states, which, besides Iran, also do not legally enforce burqas/hijabs, these are the countries that make up the Middle East. Maybe you've indirectly advanced the point I was trying to make. Careful use of Language is a constructive path to resolution. Careless language is either ignorantly unhelpful, or simply a deliberate weapon for further destruction.

Ok. Not the point I was trying to make. I'll accept responsibility for my failure in communication. But yours is well understood. No need for peaceful resolution, you say. Just kill them all.

These and other examples seem to be this longing for "Our Real Being", but in a way, they are vain attempts because once "crossing the divide" of the kind of consciousness of Signifiers et al, it is only like looking at a far distant shore that may or may not really be there. They are artificial/secondary ways of getting there, in other words. — schopenhauer1

The way to transcend our mundane and fictional selves, the troubled self, the self of Consciousness, is to be the Real and organic self, the aware-ing Body simply in its Organic Living. To say it is anything more—even to say, as Zen might, that it is to live unattached to the comings and goings of the Narrative self, the fiction—reflects still the narrative’s desperate hold upon me.

Yes. From where I'm looking, we're on the same page.

we become in a way "exiled" from how other animals are "Real aware-ing" — schopenhauer1

And with only the possible exception of timeless "moments" in Zazen, I feat, there is no way of returning from exile. Our Real Being is far too displaced by the inescapable chatter.

I recognize your point and agree with it. My point was certainly not a contradiction. To be clear, violence is never the advisable approach, nor justified. Another way to express my point is to ask, is it harmony or victory we are after? If it's the former, remember to use Language functionally, as a constructive tool, in its promotion. If it's the latter, admit that and carry on using Language as a weapon. I sincerely hope you didn't receive my comment in the spirit of the latter.

:ok: :ok:

Language controls the world. Words are not just potent signifiers; they construct our emotions and beliefs. Like code, it programs us. And it requires another code to--not "de-program", but--reprogram us. I am not weighing in on the politics or morality of the issue in Israel/Palestine. This is not a judgement but an observation of what is often the first insurmountable barrier to any honest attempt at harmony.

Perhaps it's simple, and the Language holds no power save and except to describe the actions. Perhaps anyone who uses violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government to further political, social, or ideological objectives is fittingly deserving of the moniker "terrorist" period. Perhaps any suggestion otherwise is manipulative propaganda, designed to control our thoughts.

I reiterate that I am not taking a stand on the two sides, nor am I condoning the violence. But I may be addressing the first necessary step to a final resolution of any similar problem: the care used in Language (notwithstanding the anticipated ire of those who, in the name of free speech, pretend to barf at any mention of political correctness).

If the 17th century African's rebelled; escaped in large numbers from a plantation, and massacred the white civilians occupying their and nearby plantations, would we call that Terrorist today? What about if Jewish captives of the Nazi’s, escaped en masse, a concentration camp, and massacred the civilians in nearby Mansions, including, god forbid, even the Nazi children out in harms way, skipping and living it up behind the walls of their fathers’ death prisons? Or the indigenous First Nations of the Americas pushed out of their homes by the fascist/racist expansion of their colonialist occupiers? Or the indigenous Africans of South Africa violently reacting to Apartheid. Today, would they be called terrorists?

And what about the Pxxxxxxxxxxs?

brown as you re-paint the old cave metaphor for artistic purposes. — Fire Ologist

A richly textured one, at that.

I worry about us for not proudly remembering philosophy is art, and for clinging steadfastly to the theories of the great philosophers as if they present Truth, rather than re-present art; those who jump to proclaim after Socrates that we cannot know, and that the rest of philosophy is verbal masturbation; those same who then qualify their claim with “yes, but So and so’s ontology transcends that and somehow arrives at Truth.” How can one, through introspection, arrive at any place transcendent? To paint a picture, in introspection you are entering the cave, a place riddled with shadows, making your way deeper into the darkest recesses, and always coming up with, what? If not more shadows, no matter how profoundly intuitive, no matter how reasonable, dazzling or convincing. How do you get from a place of shadows, anything but shadows? We say it is meaning we are after, but how, when it is constructed only out of these shadows and only represented, cast back upon the wall as meaning, and settled upon by spectators as meaning only after a final, sometimes imperceptible, but nevertheless always necessary leap, commonly known to us as belief? How do you get from the inside world of shadow paintings to the outside world of Reality by delving deeper into the inside? That is what, from my read, Plato did, followed by Descartes, more obviously, but also what even the greats in Metaphysics like Kant, Hegel and Heidegger have done. Irrespective of the beauty, hard work, complexity, or even usefulness of their art, it is just a re-presenting, a novel bricolage of the shadow paintings already cast upon the wall. Plato remained true to his mentor in one respect: you have to leave the cave to see Truth, never mind he spent the rest of his life glorifying intro-spection and reason, pretending these are not shadows but remnants of a superior world. And, moreover, Truth is not the object that you see “out there” outside the cave—it’s too late, if your focus out there is the object, the object's “Truth” is already displaced by the shadow paintings still reflecting upon your vision, a thing, try as you might, you cannot erase. Truth is the “activity” (of) see-ing; it is the Being see-ing and aware-ing the see-ing without concern for shadows. It is not introspection. To access Truth, one must, even ever so briefly, “transcend” the cave of knowing, abiding only in be-ing. And as for our pursuit of metaphysics and other philosophy, why should there be shame in recognizing that though it is art, it is beautiful and useful, a thing out of which History has similarly constructed science and culture? We do philosophy because that is essentially all that we do, and no matter what we call it, it is what we cant stop doing: constructing meaning out of Signifiers stored in the cave, and settling upon it, from time to time, and place to place, as though it were true, and sometimes even, as though it were Truth.

looking forward to it

Sorry, my last post was intended for you.

While my specific inquiries have not been addressed in any way which closes the book for me. I recognize that it is me, who is most likely failing in my exposition, and appreciate your efforts and patience Regardless, I will re-visit Heidegger, now in the context of information you have provided to see if anything changes for me, hoping that it does. Thank you

ah! OK. Time to re-read Heidegger. I'll look closely for that. Thanks!

I don't see how Heidegger’s ontology, if we are talking about Being and Time, overcomes metaphysics. To me, it expands it, and, with the help of hindsight, not even in any radical way, but rather, in a way which might be expected following those before him like Kant, Hegel, Husserl etc. If you are willing, explain to me how his ontology transcends the conventional approaches preceding him, which ultimately amounts to constructing new expressions out of the bricolage in our minds. Like what I'm doing too. I'm not demeaning the activity, it's what we do. It's just that I'm getting the impression H's ontology enjoys some kind of privileged status when it comes to Truth, and I'd like to know: is that because H, though similarly just constructing so called truths out of Mind, has somehow transcended Mind, all of It, and a accessed Real Truth about Being? And that matters to me because I'm of the opinion that no matter how artful, the only access to (the) Truth (about) Being, is in Being.

sorry last thing, didn't even H in B and T, purport to embark upon ontology but really end up providing a philosophical reflection upon the Human as Subject, Mind as opposed to its Natural Organic Reality?

Ok, I think I understand, including how what seems like my recklessness is frustrating. I did not intend that. I respect what you're saying, and am trying to understand how it might be impact my own thinking. So, is your point about isolating ontology, to say that Fiction or not, for ontology that's not relevant? And if so, why (sincerely, not argymentively)? And if not, then why--in the context of expressing that (to keep it simple) all our experiences are Fictional if we accept that human Consciousness is limited by its own "structure," made up signifiers--does it matter to "isolate" an ontological approach? Is there something about ontology that necessarily transcends human Consciousness (given we might acknowledge that the same can't necessarily be said of metaphysics or epistemology)? Is there a reason one cannot say of ontology that any truth regarding same cannot be accessed by Language but only by being (that) Being?

I took the liberty of adding pure to ontology. Why? Because I view H as engaging in metaphysics, notwithstanding his (extremely impressive, far superior to anything I could do) effort to focus on ontology. So I'm relying upon what I presume to be, your better understanding of H and submitting that, if there is such a thing as an inquiry into the nature of Being divorced from other metaphysical, epistemological, and (I think even) psychological (in the Freudian/Lacanian sense) considerations, it ought to be differentiated, and I (lazily) selected to preface it with pure.
In any case, I found H not to be pursuing "pure" ontology.
BUT, and here was the point I guess I failed to make. If one is to pursue purely ontology: what is being; it is futile to do so with thought, or anything else which tries to gather (construct) knowledge. Because knowledge is constructed out of empty Signifiers, and while admittedly useful, will not shed an iota of Truth about the Nature of Being which can (in my estimation) only be accessed by Being.

can anyone else see the validity in this idea of "excess" in existence, especially for the human experience? — schopenhauer1

I have not been exposed to the horror writer, nor the philosohers you say influencing him. But I found your info fascinating and can relate. I'll try to be concise. However, to do that, I must oversimplify, and necessary details will inevitably have to follow should you, or anyone care.

Presume, as I do,

1. that there is a Real consciousness shared by many if not all "sophisticated" organisms, including humans. It is the natural aware-ing of our Bodies in the natural environment, motivated by natural drives, including survival, bonding, reproduction.

2. one of the characteristics of this aware-ing for many species including "pre-historic" humans was a system of "shortcuts" to trigger expedient responses akin to classical conditioning, "designed" to fast-track our drives. Images are stored in memory and are autonomously called up to trigger efficiency in response. Eg. hear a tiger roar, run. See a red berry, don't eat. The roar and the color red is a Signifier in memory called up for survival.

3. For humans only (as far as we know) this system of shortcuts/signifiers grew to an astronomical surplus level (your: "excess"). By some point pre-history becomes History and the word "tiger" Signifies in the same way the sound of a roar once did.

4. This excess of Signifiers evolved into a System with grammar/logic/reason/fantasy etc etc. And Human Consciousness emerged displacing Real consciousness, I.e., natural aware-ing with the system of Signifiers (for simplicity, "Language")

5. Human Mind, and thus, all human experience, is a structure of excess Signifiers stored in memory, "acting" autonomously to trigger the Body to respond with feelings and actions. The feelings etc in turn trigger more Signiers which, in turn trigger more feelings and actions, all of which are "experienced" in that form, and the Real aware-ing is inevitably displaced thereby. No longer are we motivated to feel and to act by natural drives; now it is tge desire of/for these Signifiers motivating us.


So yes, there is excess in the human experience relative to all other species; even those whose intelligence etc. resembles ours. We alone are motivated by the excess chatter taking place autonomously inside our bodies and believed by us to be real, essential, spiritual even, when all along it is autonomously moving Fiction.

Yes, and the "problem" with "pure" ontology as I see it, is you cannot arrive at "knowledge" of the nature of being that way. And, if that, presumably, is the goal of ontology extracted from the rest of metaphysics as I have inferred about Heidegger from your statement, then truly, what's the point? With the rest of metaphysics and with epistemology, though ultimately futile because fictional, functions are served. From my reading of Being and Time, at least, I think H does go beyond ontology, and provides a very functional report about Mind and metaphysics in general. But that's just my reading.

As best I could. I like to think that my (albeit corrupted and elementary) understanding of that, helped shape my thinking. I'm not attempting false modesty. I think that all positions, metaphysical or otherwise, are arrived at by a collective writing, and that sometimes, particularly for the metaphysical, even if the reading is impure, it may still elucidate (even if varied from the so called author's intent). So much more to say...

I'd be interested if your understanding of Heidegger might shed more light on our discussion. If so, I'd be happy to hear, and will respond tomorrow. If not, it's been a pleasure.

Sorry, the philosopher does not even see things as they are nor thing in itself. These too are constructed out of Reason and dialectic and perhaps because we intuit the Fiction and are forced to construct meaning leading us to such concepts. But really, even there, we are in the cave, using Fictional tools to excavating fiction.

Well, yes, I should've clarified. "Reality" too is a fiction. Whatever Reality is, we can only know it as a fiction. Within human Mind alone is reality even spoken of, and so, I speak of it. I cannot cross thr gap between Fiction and Reality while remaining in Fiction. When I speak of Reality I am already beyond/alienated from being (Reality. Although, I have no business saying so). I apologize for how frustrating it may seem. But it is what it is.

As for Plato. Yes. And had he remained true to Socrates, he might have concluded that the shadow paintings are Fictions, and that upon ascension from the cave the philosopher sees no forms, no Signifiers, no thing, no ideal of a thing (no thingness). Instead, the philosopher just is, is just see-ing.

I'm submitting that everything going on in the human Mind is Fiction. So yes, Language, too, and thing, and thing-ness. There is Real but that can only be accessed in being; once knowing is engaged, it is ultimately knowing Fiction. Yes, of course, this too. Then what's the point? 1. Exactly, but 2. Remember, there is Reality; it's accessed by being, not knowing. My Body is Real, and to access its reality, there is nothing I need to do but be (it's reality) 3. With respect to Mind, which for we humans, displaces that reality, and, with respect to the topic at hand--metaphysics, and "knowing,"--just because it is ultimately fabricated out of empty images, Signifiers stored in memory, and "made" "real" by processes of dialectic, fabricating meaning, never discovering, but, rather, always only settling upon true (belief), doesn't mean it is not functional. To wit: the wheel, rocket, democracy, and economy, the theories of evolution and relativity, plus the billions of other things, so-called good and so-called bad, constructed out of these images stored in memory and settled upon for their function.