3rd-person, “scientific” reality is none at all but rather that shadow or negative image of the real. reality is subjectivity whereas to every subject a point-of-view emerges by which it can enter into 2nd-person relations thus drawing together the fabric of being through filaments of love—which makes things One—but insofar as the potential objects of these relations are reified as such in their unrealised state, a 3rd-person framework emerges which is then corroborated and rehashed through the testimony of others to the point that the model begins to assume the mantle of its source and we imagine the physical world could somehow have preceded the spiritual one, that the causes of our perceptions could have preëxisted their effects
“The reason for this is almost banal: consciousness, uniquely, is not a third-person phenomenon available to objective description; it is first-person all the way down. And yet it is an indispensable prejudice of the modern method that a verifiable scientific description must be an entirely third-person narrative of structural and causal connections and correspondences. On principle, it is precisely the first-person perspective that must be subdued, and even ideally banished from our investigations, in order for a properly “scientific” account to emerge from observation and experiment and theory. Any remainder of the pure subjective constitutes only an area of unintelligibility. And this, needless to say, becomes a fairly intractable difficulty when the phenomenon under investigation happens to be subjectivity as such. The problem is one not merely of appropriate scientific technique, but one of logic.“
3rd-person, “scientific” reality is none at all but rather that shadow or negative image of the real. reality is subjectivity whereas to every subject a point-of-view emerges by which it can enter into 2nd-person relations thus drawing together the fabric of being through filaments of love—which makes things One—but insofar as the potential objects of these relations are reified as such in their unrealised state, a 3rd-person framework emerges which is then corroborated and rehashed through the testimony of others to the point that the model begins to assume the mantle of its source and we imagine the physical world could somehow have preceded the spiritual one, that the causes of our perceptions could have preëxisted their effects
DBH on a similar subject: https://iai.tv/articles/the-absurdity-of-mind-as-machine-david-bentley-hart-auid-2479?_auid=2020&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
“The reason for this is almost banal: consciousness, uniquely, is not a third-person phenomenon available to objective description; it is first-person all the way down. And yet it is an indispensable prejudice of the modern method that a verifiable scientific description must be an entirely third-person narrative of structural and causal connections and correspondences. On principle, it is precisely the first-person perspective that must be subdued, and even ideally banished from our investigations, in order for a properly “scientific” account to emerge from observation and experiment and theory. Any remainder of the pure subjective constitutes only an area of unintelligibility. And this, needless to say, becomes a fairly intractable difficulty when the phenomenon under investigation happens to be subjectivity as such. The problem is one not merely of appropriate scientific technique, but one of logic.“
Again... my wish is that we were neighbors! I find your thought process extraordinarily familiar!