DQ: I can mentally split up any object at will. Can't you?
Jason: Depends, for one thing I'm still not convinced that it can be proven beyond doubt that splitting of objects is done by the mind. Let me give you some examples why. Imagine a situation in which you hear a voice, but you can't locate the source of it, there appears to be no person or loudspeaker etc anywhere, but yet you continue to hear this voice. Now, could you say for certain that the voice was not simply a product of your imagination? That shows the difficulty in correctly differentiating between what originates in the mind and what doesn't.
I'm not sure that I see your point. I have no trouble mentally splitting the voice into its parts, regardless of its origin.
Or another example: try to alter or remove a particular boundary that exists in your visual field, say the border that exists between the text and the background on your computer screen. Can you do it? Probably not. What does that say about boundaries? If you think that the ability for some boundaries to change, apparently by the power of mind, is proof that all boundaries are mind created, then what about counter-examples like this?
You seem to be equating the appearance of physical contrasts in the moment (such as black text on a white background) with boundaries, which is creating some confusion here.
A thing can appear to have sharp boundaries, in the sense of being sharply contrasted with what is not it, and yet the mind can determine that its boundaries lay elsewhere. I gave an example of this in my book. The Australian government determines that the boundaries of Australia lay in the sea, 15 miles off the coast, and not at the actual coast itself.
So the determination of where a things begins and ends is a mental activity, which is a separate issue to that of physical contrasts. However, having said that, even physical contrasts cannot really be located. For example, if we were to zoom up into the black text on the computer screen, the sharp lines of the text would quickly give way to fuzzy pixels and then to photons and electrons, etc, making it impossible for us to locate where the text physically begins and ends.
Another problem I see, and one which you seem to think you addressed, but I don't think you did, is the time aspect. Assuming for arguments sake that I did agree that the mind was responsible for creating bounaries. All I could really say for certain is: I have memories, which are inherently uncertain(alien implanted, drugs, memory lapse whatever), of mentally splitting up objects, and I could use that uncertain memory as a basis to make still more uncertain speculations that my mind could split objects up at some future date.
The fact still remains that I can mentally split up any object in the present moment at will. The issue of time needn't come into it.
J: But if that is the type of proof you think is relevant I've got a humdinger for you:
"It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical Jason being faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. The key point is that Jason has the capacity to be Superman at any time."
DQ:He does have that capacity, if the conditions are ripe.
J: Alright, what about this one(which is a very slightly modified version of what you originally wrote):
"It is sufficient that we can imagine a hypothetical observer not mentally breaking the thing into parts. The key point is that a thing does not have the capacity to be mentally split into parts at any time."
I mean if you reckon hypotheticals are enough proof, then this would seem just as viable as the alternative you offer.
The fact that I can mentally split up an object at will is sufficient for me. The possibility that others might not have this ability isn't relevant.
My point about the "hypothetical observer" was to illustrate that an object can be mentally slit up at any time. Even if you are choosing not to do it in a particular moment, it still has that capacity nonetheless. It doesn't matter if this "hypothetical observer" actually exists or not.
J: If there is nothing but/beyond/behind direct appearances of the moment, then why use the words "project onto reality"? That gives the impression that there is something beyond that can be projected onto. It suggests that appearances and boundaries are less real, because they are projected over real reality.
DQ: It helps people break free of the idea that things inherently or objectively exist.
J: So this argument of yours about "projecting" boundaries onto reality is not actually truth, it's just a teaching method? A technique you use to mold peoples minds into the shape you want, despite the fact you know it is ultimately false? Isn't it kind of dishonest to try discuss truth on a philosophy forum knowingly using false ideas presented as truth?
DQ: The conflict you are seeing isn't really there.
J: Using something which is not fundamentally true to overcome delusion is like using a belief in the Easter Bunny to overcome belief in Santa Claus.
A delusion cannot be overcome unless the thing used to overcome it has more truth-content than the delusion in question.
So it's a matter of overcoming successive delusions until all you have left are thoughts that are 100% free of delusion.
DQ: There is no such thing as truth, other than the overturning of delusion.
If there is no such thing as truth, then what is delusion?
A delusion is a mistaken thought about Reality. Truth is a corrective to those mistaken thoughts. When all mistaken thoughts have vanished, one no longer has any need of truth.
When a fire burns all the wood and there is nothing left but ashes, the fire itself goes out.
DQ: For example, the truth that "boundaries are projected onto reality" gains its truth from the way it overturns the delusion that boundaries inherently exist within the fabric of a physical world imagined to be objectively existing.
J: You seem to be saying that truth is truth simply because it displaces current delusions, not because it accurately reflects reality.
I'm saying both. That which overcomes a current delusion reflects reality to a greater extent than the delusion.
DQ: This is how all teaching and all articulation of truth operates. The process of becoming enlightened is one of getting rid of successive delusions, each more subtle than the last, until there are none left. And when that finally happens, the concept of truth no longer has any meaning.
J: So why are you continually writing about truth on this forum if the concept of truth has no meaning?
Because I value what lies beyond the duality of truth and delusion. The only way to become aware of what lies beyond truth and delusion is by getting rid of delusion. Hence my valuing of truth.
It is similar to why I value the masculine, even though my focus is really on what lies beyond the masculine and the feminine.
You didn't answer one of my questions from the last post, and I'd really like you to, I think it could prove to be pivotal for this discussion, so here it is again:
DQ: Maybe we are at cross-purposes here. I agree with you that in a particular moment the boundaries that we experience form the bedrock of reality. But this doesn't conflict with idea that boundaries are imaginary projections.
J: Again, projected onto or over what?
On what is imagined to be a physical world objectively existing.