Writing 2

Opening

The quest to discover the nature of reality continues. The first revelations of reality does not only contain experience, but it also contains this thing called "existence". Existence is also a controversial matter among many people, especially when it comes to the existence of God or gods and goddesses. The reality of existence is proven simply with again, observation. Observation and experience will lead to the understanding that there is this thing called experience, which means there is "something" which exists. More people would claim further that there is something behind the experience. In this writing, I will explore not just what existence is, but the relationship between experience and existence.

Existence

It is incredibly difficult to define existence, that is to discover the substance or essence of existence. However, just as we did with experience, we shall explore the various properties of existence as immediately accessible to us. Existence cannot be fully understood on its own, that is in separation from experience. When separated from experience, all things are incomprehensible for there is no being of experience to do the comprehension in the first place. However, we may imagine that existence without experience would be wholly "physical" or "material" (Quotation marks indicate a difference from common usage of the words). 

As such, we shall explore existence in its relationship with experience. Foremost, it seems that experience is at least a type of existence. Now there are 2 hypotheses on what the exact relationship between existence and experience is, the first being separation and the second being union. The separation hypothesis is best described as follows, experience is an image and existence is the object of the image. The relationship between an image and an object is that while an object is the true self, an image is a symbol or representation of itself, either by similarity or by establishment. The union hypothesis would be a bit difficult to explain, because if using that analogy, then there would be a union between the image and the object, or that the true reality is a combination or union of the 2 things. 

Before we continue on to explore deeper those 2 hypotheses, it might aid us in understanding a basic property of existence. Existence is intuitively the greatest category of all things. This means anything which can be considered a "thing" or an "object" is in fact existences. Though the manner in which they exist is more debatable and will not be discussed in this writing. So, we can say that "everything exists", or in a clearer form, "Every thing exists". This is a matter of definition, as we define things and objects as equal to units of existences.

When we consider that experience too is a thing, then we obtain the knowledge that experience is a type of existence, this is mentioned earlier. Now let us explore as well the reasoning behind the definition of existence as equal to thing or object. In this case, we encounter that not all truths are self-evident or logical. Some truths just "seem" true, that is our mental vision sees the apparent truth of certain ideas, even though they have no actual justification. These truths are called intuitive truths, and the truth that existence is the greatest category is intuitive too. There is no real justification, but it is simply a way or choice of interpreting the phenomena of reality.

If we understand that existence is the greatest category, then the category of experience cannot be greater than the category of existence. It would imply that there is such a thing as an experience which does not exist or is not a thing. It is important to note that this addresses experience in general and not the specific limited experience of humanity. As such, experience has to be either equal to or smaller than existence. This is precisely the question of the 2 hypotheses, union or separation. Is there any means of justifying any of these 2 hypotheses?

The answer is so far, there is no justification possible. For the 2 hypotheses does not change the reality of the phenomena that we have. Let us explore, if existence and experience are separated, it would mean that existence causes experience upon interacting with a certain form of existence. However, we can never know if there is actually an existence behind the experience, that there is such a separation. We can only assume axiomatically or intuitively establish the truth which we are more comfortable with.

If existence and experience are united, it would mean that all things have a dual nature, that is as an existence and as an experience. As all things are experiences, then it is simply a matter of merging or union of different experiences into a single coherent experience. However, this is difficult to prove as well, as we are always faced with experience, we can never know if there is such a thing as separate existence or not. The veil of experience does not change regardless of which hypothesis is true.

As such, we may acknowledge that from any point of view, this problem is impossible to solve and justify. Then while there must exist a truth of this problem, that truth is "unattainable" and "unapproachable". Therefore, in order to satisfy our intellectual desires, we have to make a choice for this problem. I personally choose the idea of union, that the true reality of any object is the union between its essential existence or properties and its experience, the whole experience of the object. Rationally speaking, there is no basis for my belief, as such it is best to admit that my belief in this subject is irrational. The rational decision is not to believe, as there is no justification of belief, and thus to remain agnostic in this matter.

The reason I choose to believe is that the consideration of the entirety of reality seems to support the idea of union, that reality is a union of existence and experience. For all things are received through experience and as such there is no evidence of a separate existence. Absence of evidence is of course never evidence of absence, absence of evidence is simply absence of certainty. There is of course the reason that this all relates back to the nature and existence of God, which I am believer of and thus it supports the idea of union.

It is important to understand that when I mention "support", it does not mean rational support in the way of absolute justification. It is instead justification by rational vision or rational feeling, or as mentioned before, "intuitive truth". Intuitive truths are simply seen and not through a clear path from the reality of experiences. These truths are intuitive because they transcend experience, and as such we have to "feel" and "see" our way through this. 

Now the idea of union does not actually solve the problem of the nature of existence. It simply shows that existence is united with experience. The nature of existence itself still consists in "nothing". However, it is not that it is truly nothing, rather that it cannot be defined in language. The singular essence of existence is ineffable other than going around it forever, but the complex and composite particular existence is certainly comprehensible and effable. For now, the idea of existence is sufficiently discussed, until the next time.