“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.”
This would then accord with the first statement I made: I am a person like any other person.
It is ridiculous to argue that reality is not real. It is absurd to suggest anything that does not concord with a potential rebuttal￼.
In a post I think I made about four years ago or some thing, and I don’t think I’m the only one to have made this kind of description of things:
When I see you, and I mean you as this person, say, that is standing in front of me, speaking things to me, conversing with me etc. What is really occurring is something that appears like the following:
Let me see if my quasi-mathematical assemblage will make sense. It has to do with what I think it was Derita calls bracketing. But maybe it was someone else.
[Me <you>]= me
I think we could call this: The definition of solipsism is internally a non sequitur. The very usual idea of solipsism is a misunderstanding of its own meaning.
Basically no matter what occurs, it is always encapsulated by subjectivity.
It is always. Me= [me <not me>]
Now, this does not mean that I am the totality of my universe. .And yet it does mean that everything that is the universe is ultimately subjectivity. And, that the only subjectivity that can arise is of the subject￼￼.
Again I think it’s Derrida that talks about this, but I could be wrong,￼ as soon as I say “me” I have introduced a necessary universe that must concord and extend from the assumptions that are invested in that term. Personally, in my work I don’t used the term “text”, and specifically for exactly the reason that I’m talking about with reference to the word “me”: Because it is already invested in a real world. I like “term”, Because we are talking more about the terms of discourse.
So to say that the universe is entirely invested or is entirely of subjectivity, and then to say “that is me”, I have necessarily bracketed something away from the truth of the matter, the truth of the matter being that the universe is the subject￼.￼￼￼￼
So in order for me to talk about what is really occurring, what is actually occurring, I have to “suspend”, in one light, or “bracket”, in another light, things of the totality. Four and this is where the idea of structuralism is founded, in polemic’s, and necessary opposites. But structuralism still assumes that there is some sort of separation of the subject from the universe, at some point, somewhere, we don’t really know where it is, in fact, one could say that that’s what philosophy deals with is where does this break occur between the subject and everything else￼.￼
But my point more specifically here is perhaps better said:
you are the me that I don’t know of yet. You are what I encounter of myself that I could not predict before hand. The world is that aspect of myself which completes me, that unknown unpredictable, unaccounted for absolute which contradicts and yet fulfills the substance of my being in the universe as a universe is indeed universal. Not in the sense of that I am my own person and then you are your own person absolutely, but more in the sense that nothing can arise outside of subjectivity. For anytime anything arises it necessarily encounters the subject￼.￼
And so if I talk to “you”, in order to accommodate for that absolute unknown as indeed a universal part of actual existence, I have to bracket, separate, intuitively and innately come upon you as something that is “not me￼”.
I’d say that this is the nature of reality. And to argue anything different, as if I am the source of all truth, as if subjectivity, as if we each get to have our own reality, is really just saying that you’re filled with shit, that I am filled with shit, or that somehow I have a privileged communion with some other intelligence in the universe. Or outside of the universe￼.
But what happens when we start to move along that line of reasoning, we ultimately come back to the religious question that has plagued at least Christianity since its beginning, and probably Judaism before then. The problem is: how do I know when God is speaking to me the truth that it is actually true?
And this is indeed the question that Kierkegaard ponders and answers.