Looks like I have arrived at an idea similar to American philosophy Richard Rorty and I didn't even know it... with this idea of saying "NO" to the representation of a thing as a possible accordance to reality.
"Representation" means that the belief concerning the existence or the attributes of a "thing" in the world is a taking-inward of a substituent of the "thing", of the eidos, the idea, the ousia, the hyle or the sensual components of the thing or object.
That is true, and I was saying that we should meld the objective/subjective. Sure. Who doesn't know that. (answer: Angry People.)
Antirepresentationalism does not try to see the world as it is, it does not investigate knowledge or accurate representation of reality, since in every statement about the world there is an inseparable "mixture" and "cohabitation" of the subject and the object.
It seems to me that we need to think of the world/universe/body not in any way based on any logic/language/experience but instead on the apparent oneness of everything as it occurs. A lifetime is only, a way at viewing the possible success, or failure of explaining out this oneness.
"plurality should not be posited without necessity."
Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349).
We should all be familiar with Occam's razor (especially since we do enjoy talk of shaving) that
a truth should never be accredited to a time when assumptions are being posited, rather we should make no assumptions. For me, I see personal identity as an assumption that needs to fly out the window, or fall through the floor...(extremisms)
Let's not forget this little story either:
The Emporer's New Clothes
by Hans Christian Anderson.
But still, if we are left questioning -- what does exist?, if we don't!, or at least we don't exist - as we think we always thought we did to do, then I bet we could turn to a good look at Alfred North Whitehead's
and his ideas of and through which he seems to propose a comprehensive metaphysical view according to which events and processes, rather than independent substances constitute reality.
I dunno. I think the main word for me here on A Human Movement is Conversant.
We can all learn to be conversant on hosts of new topics, and again converse some more.
To not learn to become more conversant it seems, it to become an alien, or rather, exist as some type of foreigness that need not exist -- as all foreigness is only an unconversantness, based on the idea that conversing occurs as experienced identity of sense/language/thought, but it doesn't, because all life is connected like iron rods, look around, make no assumptions and realize the oneness of apparent conversantness where none is foreign, all is aligned in, within.
A Human Movement = Conversantness = Openness to direct spontaneous conversantness.
We need not be aliens. I will see you when I get back from Italia on Sept. 28th. Keep up the fight of strength of all.