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 something taking place at a distance, a feeling of exclusion 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.

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 perception must have an ontological ground. It must be the inherent nature of something that corresponds to being.

That which exists cannot have come into being from that which does not exist, nor can it cease to exist — but must be that which absolutely exists.

To believe that one can, in imagination, place oneself outside this existence and make it into an object is an impossible conception.

Existence cannot be stepped outside of and made into an object. Existence is the ontological prerequisite — the unconditional ground of all that follows.

Existence is therefore in itself absolute and must stand as the absolute prerequisite of everything.

Prerequisite-less change

Prerequisite-less change is a self-contradiction.

Change without prerequisites is a suicidal 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.

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.

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.

So,

if there is a categorical difference between the possibility of perceiving and perception itself as consciousness, and if a phenomenon — an environment — is required in which this difference and its realization can occur,

could the universe be this phenomenal medium, the necessary distinction through which perception as such becomes possible?