I said before 'we begin with what is'
we need to be clear here -
there is no knowledge - before knowledge
knowledge - or some basic platform of it and for it -
is the beginning
so the statement 'we begin with what is'
is fair enough but not strictly accurate
it comes - it is made or can be made -
only after the fact - on reflection
it is to say we can only make such a statement -
post awareness
and such a statement is existential
which is to say - pretty crudely - awareness -
consciousness - precedes any existential statement
you might ask here - are you saying awareness -
precedes existence?
it's a question of what you can know
the knowing - as it were sheds light on existence
we can then reflect - a double tracking - a reflexing -
to a view that existence precedes consciousness
but it is only in the moment of consciousness
that existence - can be stated
consciousness - is we discover (again on reflection) -
always - of -
and this 'of' - is existence -
self-consciousness is essential here for it gives
place to consciousness per se
so I am - conscious of (existence) - and I am aware
of the bound nature of this consciousness - what is
beyond is (relative to consciousness - my consciousness) -
boundless
and this is to say - 'I may well exist' -
but my knowing this - is premised on - and
entails - greater existence - of which I am
apart of - and a light to
if you were to try to explain to someone -
what all this means - this knowing - and the fact that
existence is both a function of knowing - and then -
it's ground - that there is no contradiction here -
that it has to be this way -
you would be best to set them the task of building
a house from the inside
the action of building - is what makes the house -
once made - you can step outside and see it for what
it is - and you can see that the action of building
is not the house - but what revealed the house -
and the house stands as a testament to the act of
building
