When I observe the general scene, I am aware of identifying things, though in my sweep of vision I pass over things in an instant, their identification within a context of awareness of myself. The necessity for orientation to my surroundings can be explained as an instinct for self-preservation, where in all circumstances everything has to be identified.
The affection experienced to identify my surroundings, where identify means realising the right idea of things perceived, can be termed a ‘rightness realising’ affection, and is of the affection for preservation of my life, whereby right realisation, or identification, of circumstances is the path of life. Note, it is an experienced affection for rightness in identification that I feel in all circumstances; and in this ‘realising affection’ is everything identified that is relevant to my self-preservation. I say ‘relevant’ because in the sweep of my vision everything is scanned for safety, though not dwelled upon further, but retained as an idea of what is there, those features assuming salience as directly affect me in the awareness I retain of myself in the circumstances. For example, when crossing a road, though my field of vision includes trees, lamp-posts, shops, and pedestrians, including litter on the pavement, all identified, what assumes salience in my realisation is the path I choose to cross the road, the awareness of safety of passage in respect of on-coming cars. This focus is achieved in the affection for self-preservation or life that is moved in all circumstances.
Common to all living forms are the appetites generated by the body’s inner processes, which from birth are already set in motion for sustaining of the body’s life. Thus, I feel an appetite for food as a result of what is already set up in a living body to generate such an appetite. In fact, the role of the subject in each living form is to sustain the life already generated, and which compels the life form subject in appetitive affection, to recourse to perceived sources of nourishment of the body’s life availing in the set up context it emerges in from the womb. The appetitive realising affection enables identification in perception of contextually existing objects, which can be obtained and partaken of through ingestion. The process of digestion, assimilation and disposal of waste is automatically attended to by what are internally generated realising affections for the life of the form, which are reconciled by the subject as part of its function, as extensions of its volitional control.
In the living form, we have a situation where the appetitive realising affections generated realise a subject perception of object sources of nourishment, but that the process of subject realisation is one of identification, where things are rightly realised in all circumstances of contextual experience. This would indicate that the generation of the form itself from seed is one achieved in rightness realisation, which is then extended in the subject role in the context of its living form. Thus rightness realisation precedes the contextual subject extension in its role, and is affective for the preservation of the living form. Rightness realisation is identifiable with life, and precedes the subject role in each living form; which indicates a source of affection for life that transcends appetitive realising affection of the living form subject. Or that the living form subject manifests in the appetitive affection the rightness realising affection for life that formed it and, indeed, that sustains it.
The view we have of living things is confined to the realising power of the subject as manifested in the form. A tiger is viewed as the subject in control of its form, its interior processes of blood circulation, absorption of oxygen, digestion, executed by efficient organs, enabling this as implicit of subject function. In fact, it is the reverse, the subject of the form being an extension of what is already set up as a life sustaining, implying affection for life, system. The proof is in the nature of death, when it is the supporting system that fails. What the formal subject presents to view is a rightness realising medium, whereby in affection for rightness realisation, through appetitive affection, the life of the form is contextually sustained.
In the life form subject is manifested the affection for life as for rightness realisation. This is the realising affection that forms the contextually realised life form, implicitly of a subject whose own form and power of creation eludes our understanding but is manifest in the sustained living forms of creation.
