Aloneness and projectionism

When there is no one around, I disappear into the recesses of the whole universe, simply becoming the universe itself.

Touché

Supposed there is no one around and you do disappear into the recesses of the whole universe, simply becoming the universe itself.

Years later it was discovered that this moment of of becoming was caught on CCTV and viewed by others. You were doing things which does not look like any kind of becoming the whole universe (whatever that may mean).

My question is did you truly disappear into the deep recesses of the whole universe, now that that day’s activity has shown that there was someone around watching you?

You have wholehearted believed until years later that you were alone, and that you had felt this becoming of the whole universe, yet you were observed. Do you still believe you became the whole universe now that you know you were not alone?

The point I am making is that perhaps perception has nothing to do with “becoming the whole universe”. Perhaps this and any of the other consciousness acts are simply acts of a physical being, an act that entails projectionism.

4 thoughts on “Aloneness and projectionism

  1. “… that somehow stays in place outside of what is subjectively projected.”

    I never said it stays outside of anything. “There is no outside text” means everything (Derrida means that the entire reality is the text, “there is nothing outside the text”) is included in without recourse to an outside existence or interpretation.

    The problematic “knowing” is over-thought and over-privileged.

    As I have stated before, knowledge are not objects. They do not exist in any way like Plato’s innate ideas or as physical objects. Knowledge and knowing is an activity (a process) of a thing so long as the thing continues the process of knowing. Knowledge is not perfect either. The unreliability of knowledge is “something” to be celebrated, not “something” to be dismissed. A claim to perfect inerrant knowledge or meaning is only a claim. It is not stable, present metaphysically in any way. Hence suspension of judgement. And hence meta-ontology and meta-epistemology. For philosophy to be philosophy it is (or should be) meta-philosophy, hence non-philosophy.

    Like

  2. But yes, I would say that if we are talking in reference to a physical body, then what you say is most probably true. Given the universe where a physical body exists within real parameters that extend necessarily in discussion, human beings may project their own reality upon what is otherwise an objective reality.

    So yes. It is very possible to understand reality through the idea that you have proposed. And it makes sense. But it still doesn’t explain how it is possible that you are able to know a subjective reality that is projecting, from a otherwise objective reality that somehow stays in place outside of what is subjectively projected.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s