In particular ~ from there; “This dichotomy pops up over and over in human history; a thing which is there, our sense of presence, but is itself not actually physically present“.
…but I want to take that out of the religious context and into the metaphysical.
Presences are always a thereness but a thereness need not be a presence.
As an example perhaps we could say that spatial dimensions and time are a thereness, and yet they are not ‘present’ in and of themselves. They only exist because things exist in them which denotes what they are.
Another example is colour and from that consciousness; when watching a recent episode of horizon [do you see what I see [on bbc I-player or u-tube I expect]] a scientist stated that colour does not exist!
Yet what can he mean, clearly colours are a thereness irrespective of weather or not they ‘exist’?
The consciousness is the same, it cannot be explained by the physical as we have already stated one example [colour] which it experiences yet does not ‘exist‘.
isn’t it about time we/they started accepting that physicality is not the only reality!
Here you are thinking about a beginning point and a place you will arrive at some time. Meanwhile, the world as it is right now is the only reality you have. Why the concern for something that thought cannot achieve except in time. Thought creates the space and thought creates the time: the beginning and the end. The only purpose thought has is to maintain itself which gives you an impression in consciousness that you are accomplishing something, that you are doing something. It doesn’t matter whether what is being done is based on false assumption; the doing is all that is important to you.
Sure, not everything is what it is perceived to be. Many things may be intervening in the perception process that you do not recognize. That happens even in the material world. But, if there is something beyond existence in the physical world, what are you going to trust to tell you? … your own senses, feelings, science? When you accept the instrumentality of a guiding principle, where does that put you? It puts you in that particular paradigm. Now, would you be decorous enough to say that particular concept is Reality?
We could go on saying ‘that is not all that is Reality’ to everything. But to what end purpose? Reality is already there functioning in and around us. Trying to find it may put on a merry go round that won’t end, like chasing your shadow. Maybe it’s about time we realize that if we are really interested in finding reality, what has to dawn on us is that our very questioning mechanism is born out of the answers that we already have. Otherwise there can’t be any question.
Where did your answers come from? What is this reality you are talking about?
Very true. If you know you are accomplishing that’s adds to the mix. Besides, what’s wrong with pushing ourselves on even though there’s no purpose whatsoever?
?
Sure, my senses tell me I am seeing colours, oh wait, no they don’t. …they inform me of what colours my mind should create.
Answers come from my ability to know, and that expands the greater its depth [oh and from the otherworld]. Colour and consciousness are in reality, all I’ve done is change its description ~ it remains the same reality. …hmm although that can change simply by changing the language, so who knows what will happen if we change our worldview!!!
.