93. Objective existence – a Concept.

It is interesting to know how we conceptualise a real world. It is also interesting to know who it is that is behind this game of making the world feel real. Furthermore it is surrendering to the fact that we as a ‘concept’ cannot pull off the veil to get out of the conceptual world and to get into a non-conceptual world, because both the ‘we’ and the ‘world’ simply do not exist other than as each other’s concept.

What is existence or non existence?. This begs a question that such a ‘term’ exists. The same is the case with what an object is.

An object is an ‘appearance’ in the ‘mind’ about what is perceived. It has no other factual existence. What is perceived is – shapes and colours and the ‘mental’ objectification makes the perceiving into an object and is called ‘conceiving’ it so. So there cannot be such a ‘thing’ as an object, in its own right, to exist or not to exist. The objectification is the conceptualisation that takes place out of splitting part of the perceiving, comparing with memory based data and mentally making an object here, to a perception, imagined there. So the object of the form, is a mental existence of reality. Its not physically real. So its non-existence may be real. Again, non-existence cannot exist at all as neither real or unreal. So neither existence or non-existence is real. Such the only reality of the world is its unreality as an objective bundle of objects.
So there can be no objects at all. There can be no ‘Subject” either, in absence of an ‘object” because such a ‘subject’ is another concept about what is perceiving and trying to objectifying what perceiving could be, into an object, which now cannot be ever there, for real. Its simply is a name given to an ‘object’ that seems to objectify objects. Subjects and objects are as such mental imaging of making meaning ‘in a prescribed manner’ to make seem perception as objective reality.

So it is inevitable that the appearance of all that is objective, is necessarily an objectivisation of whatever is perceiving it and this whole game is being played out by the ‘perceiving itself’ or the cognising itself or the ‘being aware of’ itself or ‘being conscious of’ itself, which, as such, can be termed THIS or ‘I’.

Now, how can one apperceive that there cannot be such a ‘thing’ as an object? The answer to this question can makes volumes of writing and cannot be specify to the query. It can only be ‘just apperceived’ for it is an inseeing, when such inseeing is presented in consciousness, becomes too laborious when elaborated dialectically in an objective medium that language is designed to be.  The process involving language would then have to prove the inexistence of ‘what is functioning’, because, it has already kept in place that, what is functioning, is an objective subject, that simply is a term for the functioning aspect of ‘life’ that is always playing out dualistically even though, it is simply not as such.

The question ‘what is an object’, can have no answer, dialectically speaking, for it cannot be a question at all and ‘objectivity’ is just taken as a ‘given’ factor in ‘phenomenal living’ , as it has been ‘always’ taken as the basis of science and philosophical thinking.

Metaphysics alone ‘seeks’ to transcend conceptuality, being as such, in its function. So –functioning, seeking dualistically to conceive non-conceptually, can only record ‘inseeing’ symbolically or by indication. So object, therefore, can be understood, only as an objectification of its subject – subject making an object of what it is- or objectivisation, or Subject perceiving what it is, as an object, and can have no other being, what so ever. In other words, objectivisation of what is, is a functioning happening at the psyche, and not what is there, existing in its own right.

To regard the ‘subject’ as an ‘entity’ is more nonsense as it is a functioning trying to conceive itself as an object of itself, making these words, and trying to understand itself. It is like ‘understanding’ trying to understand what understanding is, while such understanding is a functioning and not an object of understanding.

Further more, an object, in order to be ‘apparent’ must be conceptually extended in space and time and any being of such an object must lie in the inherent subjectivity, that is causing such illusion, much like the substance of the shadow must necessarily ‘lie’  in the substance that is causing such a shadow and not in the shadow itself.

We are conditioned to regard the ‘phenomenal’ as existent. However to ‘know’ our own reality, such conditioning must be discarded. What happens then is that, what is ‘sensorially perceived is then seen as purely conceptual structure in mind, which is all that it can be. ‘Existence’ as such is conceptual and cannot be otherwise, and noumenaility, not having an objective quality, cannot be conceived, being conceiving functionality by itself. What is conceiving cannot conceive what is conceiving while conceiving.

So what is ‘conceptually extended’ in space time, cannot be said to have, other than, conceptual existence, and its noumenon cannot be conceived at all, so that no concept such as ‘existence’ can  be applied to perception.

So it has been said “ from the beginning nothing exists”.