Already here we have written about virtuality and metaphysics. Today we will deviate from our plan. Because there is another view, perhaps another perspective of virtuality. Perhaps also another definition.
The term is difficult. But here I would stick to Ingarden. And perhaps also what the Kyoto School says (I use the term deliberately to avoid being put in an esoteric corner). I also don’t want to get into the discussion of epistemology here. Because this has no place here.
Ingarden says that only human beings construct something in addition to the reality in which they live. Be it culture, philosophy, painting, the cinema, atomic physics, etc. Man is constantly producing these, yes, virtualities and expanding them.
What then would reality be without these aspects? Zen Buddhism advises us to perceive them directly. Without the virtuality of our thoughts.
For the second time. The virtuality. And the thoughts that revolve around it. But that is not the point. Nor is it about the technological terms. Because these do not create a “new world”. Rather, they prolong our own thoughts and our own ideas. But also our own experiences. So basically we can say that virtuality is the extension, the image, of reality. It is not only in technological terms. But also as religion, philosophy, or even poetry. It sounds banal, and that’s how it is. The virtuality we create only reproduces reality. Nothing more.
And this is where a, yes, shift comes into play. A movement that I would like to stimulate. Or perhaps it is already underway. The shift in the meaning of virtuality. Towards the very things Ingarden mentioned. Towards culture, science, and religion. If we call this virtual, reality then remains on the other side. Or not always.
Because that is what it is all about. The question: Where is the boundary between reality and virtuality? And is there a metaphysics of virtuality? If metaphysics, precisely as a thought, belongs to virtuality?
End of Part II