Nature vs Status Quo. Or to break it down, “Who I am vs How it is”. Or maybe, “I am and it is”. The question becomes, is “I am” tied to or separate from “it is”? One is internal and the other is external.
Aaach! Where “I am and It is intersect”, is profound. The crux is in what you recognize as “it is”. Since everything exists now, it is, is your understanding and the recognition of it that pulls it out and makes something of it by the act of you seeing it as your own “I am”. This is projection of the “I am” into the physical world.
“It is necessary to speak and to think what is; for being is, but nothing is not.” (B 6.1–2)
There is a thought here that is important to consider: that dualistically, everything “Is or Is not”. Whereas, nothing can come from nothing so what is, is and has always been and will always be.
Denial, creativity, a fleeting thought or fantasy; these are building on something that already exists? Ah ha. Yes. This is projection too! I seek in the world only what I can find in myself, as a compelling building block even if I might (unknowingly) recognize it as missing.
Where paths intersect, the whole world looks like home for a time.
Intersecting paths by “chance” lead to the compelling recognition of what is. “What is” is based on each perceived reality, bringing forth only what already exists.
What is, is your construction by your recognition (or lack or recognition) of it.
Who cares, right? Does thinking about this or understanding it any better make any difference?