The Coehesive Reality

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Whatsoever exists remains fixed in the concrete substance of its designated existence. The vital essence of life and the experiential awareness thereof is the product of that which depends not on those who experience it. Therefore whosoever exists exists solely on the basis of that which does not rely on him. For who among men has chosen to exist? The will of man is therefore disqualified in establishing meaning and purpose to his own existence. One cannot see beyond the limitation of the experience of seeing. One cannot hear beyond the limitations of the experience of hearing. All these things were predefined for us. Should we now attempt to take what was predefined for us to redefine existence? Nonetheless, in an attempt to configure meaning and purpose man sought to subject the substance of reality to the finite limitations of their inadequate minds. Seeking to lay hold of that which exceeds their grasps, man devised to conceptualize life; identifying the essential meaning of it through the inconsistency of generic ideas, abstracted from the deep sense of uncertainty which proceeds from the fear of the unknown. As a result, the opinions of man assumed the position of that which defines him. Man chose not, yet he is, and in being what he is, his opinions is therefore deprived of the power, right, and privilege of defining him. Truth is therefore not relative nor is it a concept. On the contrary it is the source which conceptualized all things. The Truth is involuntary, contrary to and without choice and not subjected to control of the will. It strips man of his assumed power and renders him utterly dependant. Therefore man cannot define the Truth the Truth must define him.

Consider

2

I think the quest of truth is insane and a waste of time.

3

That’s a big statement. Concrete substance? A metaphor, a conceptualization, provided through, language, pointing toward . . . . . . . . . nothing. First, quantum theory demonstrates that substance is a very loose, odd, wierd, phenomenon; for there is no knowable substance without perception of some-thing – and, again, if you look at quantum theory, the thing does not even seem to exist without perception. So there seems to go flying the term “fixed” in the statement. I just don’t know how it is possible to talk about substance without perception. You’re seeming to assume, by faith, that there is a thing-in-itself (a noumenal realm as Kant would put it), whereas, I would argue that only the phenomenal realm, so to speak, is knowable, talkable, presentable.

Which is not to say that I doubt the existence of substance. I can’t dodge bullets. But I also don’t know if bullets exist without my mind. And if they do, I don’t see where one can jump and say that it is they who determine my existence, and not the other way around.

I agree to the point that vitality, initialy, is not chosen. But that is all. I would offer the same argument as provided above.