a subject/object 101

Ahead of the following is the disclaimer that an observer cannot be removed from any sort of experience, molecular interactions, physical expressions, energetic transference, etc. For all the following you can safely assume that the observer of phenomena (read: all goings on) is always both the subject and the object modifier and is the acted upon, while acting upon with any sort of interactions. There is no actual direct experience that subsists *outside* of indirect experience (i.e. some dude on the internet told me versus some well informed researcher wrote an extensive paper, versus I’ve personally tested this). With that, carry on.

Transcendence

This experience is often described as idealistic, an imagined state of being, where the observer falls away and “becomes one with the universe”. It’s bunk, but it’s a nice imagined experience for some and horrifying for others. It’s a “there is no spoon” sort of thinking, it’s a viably useful thought experiment however. More on the value of this later.

Transition

It can almost assuredly be assumed that the state of anything (including the observer) is in constant transition through any immediately observed state and that the process of which a state is transitioning is in flux. Solid ground is only solid while it is, and there will typically be a dissectible process in post that can be examined to determine any proactive variables on which it has become “less solid”. If you’re confused by this, you should be. It’s quite wildly assumed that the object and the subject are ineffably separate entities.

Illusion

Illusion has often, if not continuously, been a description of “what reality REALLY is”. This illusion (a state of what an object should be until closer examination) is really the only thing going on. Magic tricks, visual oasis, depth of field all can be perceived to be illusion, as well as a fact of what the illusion actually is upon inspection, which is contiguous, without end. This isn’t “what reality REALLY is”. Illusion is more likely to be the discrepancy of perception. But, the individual observer/object actually didn’t change enough to warrant the concept that “it’s all an illusion” as a statement of fact.

For the sake of argument

As practical as discussion can be, as both a productive and destructive exercise, exchanging words or any sort of communication actually requires (one could assume), two ineffably speakers/listeners. Since this has and likely cannot be shown as actually occurring, it’s best to assume we are always speaking to ourselves, in both a respective and dilated sense. As an example, sending a single out into the void of space, a transmitter is also a receiver, not because it was design to be, but that it had to be fed it’s transmission. This quite literally is all experience, humans don’t get to exchange common linguistics in any other sort of manner either. It might be assumed that there is a beginning point at which language comes to be, but like any of those prescribed illusions above, upon closer examination, there isn’t.

Utility

Without closing this on a bitter note, i mentioned i would explain the utility of a transcendent train of thinking, it’s value is most apparent in “the arts” but more subtly in everyday life, as we often fill in the gaps of information. We not only rely on, but are required to process information, constantly and continuously, we twist and churn ideas around, not to just make sense of things we experience, but also what we value and find meaning among. As with anything else we could ever come across, those twists can be deeply detrimental to human habitation, there will be those that wish to impede another’s daydream future, and that’s vitally required too. If you examine you, experience self-awareness in full, you’ll notice you are often the villain in any story as well as the hero. Peace.