Do I agree more or less than I disagree with the arguments above? Yet I really have no clear understanding of what I am ageeing or disagreeing to. Human consciousness is that component of nature capable of examining what this means. But how does it go about fathoming what it is already inherently a part of?
The paradox is always the same for me. If the reality of nature is the nature of reality and human consciousness is subsumed in that then what we construe as human freedom [the freedom, say, to explore what this means] can only be subsumed in this as well. Thus reducing it all to an…illusion?
How do we extricate our analysis of something from something that “is as it is” or “does as it does”? That existence “is” at all is enormously enigmatic. It boggles the conscious mind. But what does that mean?
It’s uncerrtain what it means. Maybe because by your analysis, it changes from what it was, to what it may become. To get out of the restriction placed on freedom to become, by the tautology of consciousness, of inertia, is to keep on track.
The track may be an overwhelming conditional allowing for no loose ends. It’s probably beyond a simple evaluation. It’s a new territory, unexplored, unshared. The fear goes with this new territory and what it may entail. But it’s unbound the moment it’s realized.
Some might speculate it seems clear enough to you becasue this is what you want to believe about it. But in what way [beyond speculation] are you able to demonstrate that this is what it is?