ON THE NATURE OF REALITY chapter 3

OBJECTIVITY-IN-ITSELF

     Consider an object-in-itself; that is, an object in a void, completely separated from all consciousness. Where is this object? At what time does it exist? This object possesses no thereness or whenness. In the absence of consciousness, it possesses no means of definition, not even the difference between it and nothing. The object definitely exists within itself but what good is that? When its thereness, whenness, and all other attributes are subtracted; all of which can only be delimited by consciousness, then what does the object have left but nothing? At best, the object has only potential objectivity. The object may have existence, but it has no real existence.
     One may object that existence-in-itself is all the object needs to have real existence. However, until such time and place that the object impacts on consciousness, what possible difference can it make whether the object exists or not? The object is wasted on nothingness. No object can be a real object until it becomes an object of consciousness.
     Does a table continue to exist when everyone leaves a room? The table certainly continues to exist since it is still there when everyone returns to the room (assuming no one removes the table and replaces it with a duplicate). However, when everyone goes out of the room, then all of the attributes of the table exist only in the minds of those who remember it. Even the time and place of the table is merely something remembered. In-itself, the table continues to exist in the room, but the reality of the table exists only in the minds of those who think about it.
     Consider the existence of a hypothetical object somewhere in the world. Now suppose it possessed unique attributes which no one has ever seen. If someone were to find this object, that person would be shocked to see it.
     Now suppose this object will never be found. What can one say about it? Nothing. No one even knows where it might be. One can not even say whether or not it even exists at all.
Therefore, if this object exists, it has only existence-in-itself, or potential real existence; that is, reality, at whatever time it comes into the focus of a mind.
     At this point, one may object that because one can trace the changes in an object which happen whether one is aware of them or not,  this proves that objects are real independent of their being observed. One can return to the room where the table was to find that it had burned. Since only a real table can burn, then in the interval, the table had to be real. Also, one can trace, by scientific investigation, the exact chemical changes that happened to the table while it burned, and since it burned unobserved, then the table had to have been real when it burned.
       Of course, it is true that a table can burn unobserved, but until such time as these changes  are observed, they remain equal to absolute nothingness. In other words, if the table is never observed to have burned, and if its burning never affects consciousness in any other way, then what difference does it make whether it burned or not? Its burning is equal to its not burning. The table and all of its changes are equal to absolute nothingness as long as such changes have no effect on consciousness. Only when change affects consciousness does it become real change.
     Suppose our universe, with all of its exact changes, had happened just the way we observe it to have happened, but with no consciousness to observe it. What possible difference would it make whether our universe ever existed, or when it existed, or what changes it went through? Without consciousness, our universe would be equal to absolute nothingness.
For these reasons, evolutionists have made a fundamental error when they assert that exact, traceable changes in our universe led to the evolution of life, that is, consciousness. This process is impossible because even exact changes in a consciousness universe are continuously being wasted by, and swallowed by, absolute nothingness. In order for any universe to be a real universe, consciousness must be there to begin with.
     If a consciousness can only be equal to a void if it is not conscious of something, then surely the opposite must also be true. Any object of which no consciousness is conscious must also be equal to a void. At least, consciousness possesses an inner potency, or potentiality, to be conscious of something. Any object of which no consciousness is conscious possesses no such inner potency. It is completely inert. It possesses no known, inner power to determine anything about itself, no thereness, no motion or rest, no form, no time; that is, absolutely nothing. Any object not focused on by consciousness can only be equal to absolute nothingness. An object equal to absolute nothingness possesses only potential real existence.
The evolutionist’s argument that consciousness evolved from exact, deterministic actions of inert matter and energy seems strange. The argument seems to be that consciousness, which possesses the only known power of determinism, evolved from that which possesses no known power of determinism. In the first place, the argument is unscientific because it postulates a potency in inert matter which is neither observable nor repeatable. Second, the argument is self-contradictory because it makes that which is impotent more powerful than that which is potent.
     Whenever a person sees (or hears, or feels) a previously unknown object, it then gains real existence in sensory perception, but its real existence is limited to what one sees or hears. If one imagines a previously unknown object, it gains real existence, but only in the imagination.
     One could have imagined that the other side of the moon would appear pretty much the same as the side that can be seen, but before astronauts saw it, this could be done only in the imagination. Before the other side of the moon became exactly fixed by means of sensory perception, most of its reality existed only in the imagination. Before, only its time and place were known to be real. If the other side of the moon were never seen, then forever, as far as finite minds are concerned, its detailed reality would remain limited to time, place and imagination. Without time, place or imagination, its reality would equal absolutely nothing.
Any object which is not fixed by sensory perception, or which cannot even be imagined or felt, remains equal to absolute nothingness. It possesses only potential real existence. Until such time as any object or idea comes into the focus of a consciousness, then that idea or object remains equal to absolute nothingness.
     Any object or idea is real only when focused on by consciousness, and consciousness is real only when it focuses on an object or idea. Thus duality is the only reality.