Inside, Outside. Real, Out of sanity

Outsidity/ Outside – The space of mind beyond real. Not including truth.  That part of reality which is not emotionally regarded as 'real' by the sane person.
--------------------------------------------

In religious and philosophical writings it is often difficult to eliminate all reference to the Outside. There are a number of ways of dealing with this problem. One of the most successful is to generate a distinctive kind of ambiguity about the meanings of crucial words.

Being -  the whole of human reality, the structure, the meaning and the aim of existence.

'The term 'being' in this context does not designate existence in time and space

When I use the word 'existence' I mean by it what I also mean when I use the word being. It seems that what is ment by this is… 'being there'.

Lets define the word ‘being’ in a second sense. The term 'being' means the whole of human reality some say. The meaning of this phrase is not obvious.

Perhaps we mean the sum total of the mental content of all humans - illusions and all? What humans think is real? Or that part of reality which is accessible to the human mind?


The last seems to be the best we can do. So let us suppose that 'human reality' does mean that part of the mental content -- actual or potential -- of humans which is actually in accordance with what exists.
'Human reality' is then placed in apposition with 'the structure, the meaning and the aim of existence'. What is to be understood by this? The 'aim of existence' seems at first sight to be clear, unless 'existence' has made an unannounced change of meaning since it was first used. It would seem that this phrase must mean 'the purpose for which everything exists'.


But this is difficult, because 'the aim of existence' is in apposition with 'human reality' which certainly does not include the purpose of existence.


This leads us to a distinct suspicion that when some talk of 'the structure, meaning and aim of existence' we do not mean 'existence' at all, but 'human life' instead. If we do mean this, there seems no reason why we should say so -- except that it would rob what we are saying of a status it does not possess. And if we do mean this, we have arrived at the following definition of the word 'being' -- 'whatever happens to be realistic in the mental content of humans; the structure, the meaning and the aim of human life'.


In fact, we may suggest this paraphrase of what some are saying: 'When we talk of 'being' we do not mean the Outside. We mean the Inside.'


This example illustrates a standard procedure for appearing to take the Outside into consideration without actually doing so.