Frenzy.

Despite my constant proclamation of perspective realism, I do accept the fact that there is a threshold of reality we all perceive; the laptop in front of me, the ceiling above, the walls, the trees, the rocks, the tables, chairs, vases, cigarettes, these are commonly consistent with our threshold of reality, its quantum value, its physical existence, the ability to reciprocate with it with our five main senses.

But people have to understand, reality is inconsistent.

The quality of something being real depends on our perspective of life; the way we accept and reject items, events, metaphysical forces, ghosts, demons, gods.

But is it only its physical quality that we judge its realism?

We accept certain events as real (that someone murdered another, an event that can only be proven via forensics, investigation, interrogation), we also accept numbers as real, but we don’t see a natural physical numeric in existence, but we still accept it as real.

Thus reality can be the value of realism within an event,the acceptance of a statement (how much of the spiritual do you believe, do you believe in ghosts?) a scientific algorithm, and the physical appearance of an item, making it then a unit of measurement, which we have to confirm the consistency of its realism.

Reality does not comprehend to existence.

The existence of the material:

Ok, so things, objects, things that subject to matter, has a physical and chemical quality; the material.

So what subjects the material to existence…?

Okay, say you put a piece of paper in front of me.

You ask me: What is this?

Me: A piece of paper.

You: is this real?

Me: yes.

You: does it exist?

Me: no.

You: why?

I take it, tear it in half, align the two pieces, tear in half again, repeat, then place it in front of you and ask, “Now what do we have?”

You: (assuming you understand) A stack of paper.

Me: exactly, so what happened to the piece of paper?

You: you tore it into pieces.

Me: exactly, so does that piece of paper exists?

You: no…?

Me: right, cause even if I arrange these pieces to resemble its former form, it will not be a piece of paper, I can do this many times, I can even split it to a microscopic level, but it will never become a piece of paper, if you track it back to its organic form, you just get a bunch of atoms.

This concludes that the whole differs from the sum of its parts, and that the only thing that exists is its atomic structure, hey, it’ll be even different if we could go much smaller.

Thus I’ve explained that even something physical cannot exist, and I’m trying to correct the psychological term, ‘The Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts’, which of course could be incorrect due to its various methods of approach.

You get pissed off and place another piece of paper in front of me.