The Empty Loneliness

The Empty Loneliness and the Alternative in Absolute Existence

The loneliness of living outside that from which everything proceeds.

If one sees reality as a performance taking place at a distance, a feeling of alienation may arise. That feeling of emptiness and absence of belonging to reality gives rise to an experience of loneliness. Without belonging to a greater context of community, isolation easily occurs — and must then be filled with the content that would otherwise exist in communion with other individuals. To feel this loneliness, without presence in the same condition as others, leads to sadness, shame, and fear — emotions that paralyze the effort required to re-enter a shared context.

Without good mutual relationships in strong family bonds, without friends, without work, without social community — in a life outside society and the world — there is, in the end, nothing in all of reality that sustains the meaning of continuing to postpone the inevitable end. This becomes the result of feeling outside that from which everything proceeds.The most fascinating thing is that we would rather choose a familiar suffering in an image, than an unknown freedom as "just" an experiencer of reality.

Disasters

Reality strikes us in the form of disasters with a certain regularity but is experienced locally as sudden. (“Sudden Death” in ice hockey, for example, which is only a disaster for the losers). Everything falls apart and needs constant maintenance if it is not to erode. All disasters are local, but to some extent, the disaster can be exposed on a larger scale. When we realize this, we naturally should not increase the tensions in reality, regardless of how local they are. Since a collapse in reality always leads to something new emerging, and the conditions are favorable for its development, we can only relate to the changes we have to deal with. Generally, it can take quite a long time for reality to develop the new conditions, and that time may not be available for those who need it.

When we believe that we have reality right in front of our noses, we no longer think beyond what it reaches, and then we miss half the performance. What we miss and do not understand until someone points it out is that there actually is someone 'behind the nose' who experiences reality from the inside as a pure prerequisite for it.

If we have divided reality, partly as the body's relation to the surrounding reality's infinite exposure variation, but also as the body's relation to what we imagine as the smallest measurable that can be measured but which in reality is also effects of the same infinite exposure variation, we have chosen to put ourselves outside of the common reality.

Then we have questions about where we are, and where we believe that we "Headbanging" are heading. We can then get mental images in our thinking that there may be several parallel realities that we know nothing about, and that each of us actually lives in our own little reality that we want to keep as our own reality.

Are we then, as individual observers, situated in an objective infinite reality (or in our imagination several), or do we exist as the one who actually experiences the effect of reality in the perception of it as a pure prerequisite for it?

When we realize that we, like 'Rudy,' have jumped on 'a train to nowhere' that is moving at full speed towards an unstable bridge but think that the journey is so exciting to experience, it is difficult to jump off in motion without 'Rudy,' because then we believe that the jump ends up in an abyss without end, and that it then no longer matters whether we jump off or not, and by then we have already lost hope.

To turn away from reality.

To then not want to acknowledge reality is to want to turn away from the awareness of reality. To fail to realize that the capacity for perception of reality is the prerequisite for experiencing anything whatsoever — and that the absence of that experience is no experience at all — and that this prerequisite never ceases, and that no alternative exists.

The faculty of perceptions ontological foundation.

The faculty of perception must have an ontological foundation.
It must be the inherent nature of something that corresponds to sensing its own existence. That which exists cannot have arisen from something that does not exist, nor can it cease to exist — it must be that which absolutely exists.
To then believe that in imagination one can place oneself outside this existence and make it into an object is a possible notion, but it makes Existence relative to the one imagining it. One cannot place oneself outside of existence and make it an object. Existence is the ontological prerequisite — the unconditional foundation for everything that follows. Existence is therefore in itself Absolute and must be considered the absolute prerequisite for everything.

Prerequisite-less change

Prerequisite-less change is a self-contradiction. Change without prerequisites is a "self annilating statement", because it means claiming that change can occur without any condition for change. Change without a condition for change is something no one can truly believe. Either one believes in a single prerequisite for all change. Or one believes in multiple prerequisites for all change.

Then one believes that what one sees are the prerequisites for all change. One thus holds an objective conception of the prerequisite for all change. When science has concluded that it is not possible to objectively discover the prerequisite for change because the investigation itself affects the outcome of the investigation, and that idea should therefore be abandoned.

With this, we ourselves then must become the prerequisite for the changes we have the opportunity to implement. In this way, we ourselves become the prerequisite for the changes we are able to carry out.

The question of experience

What must truly be asked, then, is what the prerequisite for all experience of change could be. To suggest that all experience of change requires a faculty of perception capable of experiencing the change — and that its Absolute Existence must be the ontological ground of everything — will either be met with a dismissive unwillingness even to test the assumption, or with a compact silence.

Unrealistic notions

History is filled with reality-detached conceptions. They appear in the fairy tales we tell children. It is entirely possible, in language and in thought, to formulate what does not accord with our experience of reality. To imagine that change can occur without the use of the faculty of perception is to employ precisely that which one claims need not be present — yet one does not reflect on this. To believe this is illogical and childlike. One imagines dead things changing position under natural laws that govern positional change, so that these dead things randomly cluster together and form structures that give rise to awareness of their surroundings — and then alter those surroundings by their own will. This presents a picture of nature as fundamentally dead. One also believes that all dead things were once compressed into an infinitely dense lump — so dense that the density was infinite — and one forms this conception objectively from the outside, because one can use one's remarkable faculty of perceptions imagination to do so. But this, too, goes unnoticed.

Requirements for Mentalism?

Can you demand that others be mentalists and read other people's states of mind? Do you need to be a mentalist to do this or can you still understand the state of mind behind the poker face they are hiding behind? If someone has to keep the mask on, doesn't that mean they don't want to show what they have on their hand? Do you have to have the other person's entire life history in mind in order to meet another person in mental reflection? Does the person who believes that the phenomenal difference is the basis of everything think that this reflection of the mental perception must be impossible?

Is there any other possibility of experience than through the differences in a cluster of organic sense angles where reality is the distinctions of the information as a difference that constitutes a difference? Can the source then be an Absolute Existence (atomic subject), but experience is a "cluster", and does that mean that the diversity is entirely a product of how the perception frequency modulates from potency to realization, and can reality then lie in between?

Is then the prerequisite the mental faculty to the atomic Absolute subjective Existence of perception the ontological basis?

How great is the probability that Reality is a product of how the mental faculty of perception "tunnels" the total potential and creates distinctions? Could Reality then be the pattern that arises at the realization and not the individual points?

If Potency (Off) were to be the Absolute Existence in its resting state. Everything is possible, nothing is defined, and ​Realization (On): The ability to perceive activation and a distinction is made, could Reality then be formulated as V= ∆(Potency → Realization) × Frekvency,

Could Reality then be the extremely rapid alternation between these states? Would this mean that reality is not things but the spark that arises when intentionality ignites and extinguishes sensation?

Could we then get an affective resonance through mirror neurons and sense microexpressions that leak through even the stiffest mask?

The field of tension and its poles

What constitutes the prerequisite for all change remains shrouded in obscurity, yet one has heard of a sequential tension field without poles that is said to be the prerequisite for something to emerge from the field — as if from nowhere.

But wait, someone might think. That sequential tension field did not appear before time and space emerged from the singularity. How is one actually to think about that?

To say that one can imagine something suddenly appearing from nothing is possible to assert — but not possible if one truly examines whether it is possible.

And regarding that intriguing field: between which poles would the tension relation lie?

But who knows? Possibly between the Faculty of Perception and its realization — perhaps someone would dare to suggest that.

The Universe as a Phenomenal Medium

So, if there is a categorical difference between the faculty of perception and the actual perception as consciousness, and a phenomenon — an environment — is needed where this difference and its realization can occur, Can then the universe be this phenomenal medium, the necessary difference, through which experience becomes possible at all?

Presence and Reality

Reality is not an illusion The great illusion is a 'self' that is separate from reality. The self is an informational, linguistically ongoing interactive mental image in a social interface that changes over time. The self is about information, memory, and role-playing. We are not 'someone,' we do something in relation to something. Personality lies in the communicated memory of the role we are currently playing for others. We remember all roles and all personalities and which roles they have played. We do this through people's appearance and then react based on all the accumulated information gathered behind the mask and available in the encounter. Personality lies in memory. All people have a view of reality, and this view is based on the memory of reality. The cast list of reality is exponential, and new players appear in real time. There is only one role on the list that everyone is afraid of, and that is the role of Death.
All performances in which Death is included as a role are horror films. Especially when Death has the lead role.
But when it turns out that role is the dullest role, no one wants to know about it.
When we think that role has lines and choreography, the one who is to play dead becomes an inactive role. The one who plays dead gets no lines and also no information to react to.
Death has no role to play in the performance of life.
We fear death because we project characteristics from life onto it – we imagine darkness, silence, or loneliness.
Without a role to play, “Death” cannot do anything.
“Death” is a completely uninteresting role.
The one who gets the role of Death is so afraid of life that they do not dare to participate in that performance.
“Death” is when the game is over.
When the performance is experienced as boring, everyone wants to leave.
But the performance is not over until the "fat lady" has sung and the curtain falls. And when we realize that death does not matter, we also do not need to be afraid of death. Instead, it is in presence that our care should lie.
It is the height of selfishness to believe that the personal performance is the only one going on and that reality does not continue after all.

The question of what happens after death is then wrongly formulated. The right formulation would be, "what happens after reality". The question of what happens when the performance is over is based on the belief that the great performance comes to an end, but reality does not end with 'death', but reality does not end with "death" just because "death" has no role to play.

Uniqueness

Everyone wants to be unique, different and individual, which leads to the fact that in reality we remain total strangers to each other. If someone then claims that they are of the same "scrap and grain" as everyone else, should this really be noticed by everyone else as something unique? The very idea that everyone is special and unique can lead to a mental breakdown because people only talk about reality being just one of many, when in fact it should be said outright that everyone experiences the different effects of one and the same reality in different ways, by receiving the good effects of reality in a bad way. And then we are no longer 'scrap and grain' but "The Faculty of Perception" that experiences reality as it appears.