Are you truly IN such a world and of it?

I can summarise my current position as; minds are in and of, a quality and field that is Communication, through a complex of filters and rules that generate the experience of a relational interactive world of reflection or feedback in representation.The mind creating the filtering beliefs and definitions is of a different level to the mind of adaptation to its 'world'.

As the ego structure from the spirit informing.
The positing or limiting of our mind IN and AS a body is such a filter through which a masked and distanced sense of communication of both need and fulfilment shares within a medium of
resonances that are the inner matrix of all communication - rather than the structural or material symptoms of its expression and embodiment that we experience as a realm of cause and effect and the development of consciousness as both segregative and reintegrative.
Intuitive knowledge is a felt quality that cannot be framed in limiting frames of meanings without partaking of their predicate. Extracellular communication is a symbolic representation of the medium of which 'cells' are posited as segregated domains of living organisation and homoeostasis of inner and outer conditions relative to their boundary condition.
The inspiration to look for agents of cause and effect is part of a reintegrative accommodation to a segregative differentiation. But this is a consciousness in development often taken as a necessary or morally worthy answer, relative to a closed mechanistic isolation to object-subjection.
The idea of virtue unselfconsciously going forth of itself as a quality of resonant wholeness underlies the same law operating the self-conscious attempt to get or become whole from a presumption of lack, inadequacy or need set in isolation and disconnection requiring impactful intervention to gain traction or 'become real'.
In our own integrative paths and choices, we do not need to empirically validate ideas that work for or serve a true sense of evident helpfulness, as 'permission slips' to be who we are without waiting for external permissions, but this is not a right to impose our current choices on others as facts. Nor a need to attack other's choices where they are living them from and in a lawful freedom to learn, live & grow.
But where ideals, models or ideologies are set over relational honesty, they will undermine and attack the very basis of our communication, which is in and of love, even if set by attempt to force outcomes from a reaction to lovelessness or 'pathological conflict' repackaged as intent and 'countered'.
Our ideas are stepping stones to an expansion of embracing perspectives. But in their moment they may seem to be the only way to see, such as to set as our home and defend it. To kill and die for it as our right to be. But our being holds the right to question our thinking, and the 'realities' or fruits and results. This actually Is life rather than a position imposed on life that generates conflict as an identity by reaction.