What I am saying has nothing to do with the "inside world" or the "outside world." The "inside world" IS the "outside world". There is no "inside", "outside", or "pretending." There is only be-ing.
Humans have the capacity to "show up," to be present, but they don't have the ability because their "false god" is the "Subject-Object" mis(sed)-representation of life. The "subject-object" is only a representation, a semblance, IT IS NOT LIFE! You can spend a lifetime dredging up mountains of evidence to substantiate the existence of the "subject-object" relationship and the people around you can do the same thing and the "subject-object" will still only be a semblance, a real semblance but still a semblance.
Until you make the "leap of faith" into be-ing what I am saying will only be a hint, something that will gnaw at you and show up as "there must be "more" to life."
The strange thing is that your position is very close to that of Ortega. What he proposes is that what you call "be-ing" he would call "liv-ing". You seem to agree with this when you mention the "mis(ed)representation of life," and you say "IT IS NOT LIFE!" and even "there must be "more" to life." There is! Ortega's philosophy is not a philosophy of "being" in any abstract, static, traditional sense, not an an "ontology," but rather a philosophy of "be-ing" in a concrete, dynamic sense; that is, it a philosophy of life or "liv-ing!" At one point he says that he would rather have called it "biology" (from the Greek bios
, life), had that term not already been taken to refer to the "science of life," that is of all living beings.
I will not get into the "subject-object representation," since it is not part of his philosophy. Instead he proposes the "I am I and my circumstance" relationship. This famous formula first appeared in his first book, Meditations on Quixote
, in 1914. As he explains in his later work, the first "I" represents "My Life", the life of each individual human being. He posits that this first "I", or "My Life", is the "radical reality", in the sense that all other realities appear or are "rooted" in it ("radical" comes from the Latin radix
, root). The second "I" represents the sensing, feeing, thinking, deciding person that we are, and "my circumstance" represents everything other than the second "I", including the sensations, feelings, thoughts that occur to the second "I" or person that we are, both "be-ing" or "co-existing" within the radical reality that is "My Life." Both the second "I", me, the person that I am, and "my circumstance," what occurs to me, co-exist
in the radical reality
that is the first "I", or "My Life". Many times he just uses the term "life" or "living" when he is referring to "my life" meaning the "life" or "liv-ing" of each individual human being. This has been referred to as a "unitary-dualism" that is at the same time a "pluralism", in the sense that each individual person co-exists with their individual circumstance within their individual reality or life, and that therefore, there is a plurality of individual realities. However, only my individual, "radical reality", or "My Life", is directly accessible to me.