Fil Albuquerque wrote:Well I am sorry to say so, but that amounts to say nothing...what form of objective evidence would we have to have then ? When you claim that something is not objective what does that mean ? Where rests the criteria for what should be really objective instead then ?
What if "objective evidence" is not a requirement? What if "objective evidence" is nothing more than a distraction?
Like you Fil, I have been a curious person my whole life (much to the chagrin of the people who live on this planet in close proximity to me – LOL). I can see now that my insatiable curiosity was only for me and not meant for anybody else. Early on I studied morphology (ectomorph, mesomorph, endomorph) and I became fascinated by the patterns in life. Somewhere along the 'path', I had an inkling of an idea that all of what I was looking at had something to do with the person doing the looking. I had a short relationship with psychology and then moved on to my love affair with philosophy.
I had a long relationship with philosophy, however, Kant, Descartes, and even Socrates and Plato weren't providing any answers to the question “Who am I?” so I put philosophy back on the shelf.
In 1995 I was drawn to
Being and Time by Martin Heidegger. My intent here is to give you a sequence of events and not to promote Heidegger. Anyhow, I picked up
Being and Time and attempted to read it. I read a paragraph or 2 and realized that I wasn't interested in what Heidegger had to say so I put the book on the shelf. I would walk past that black and white dust cover and my eyes would be drawn to it.
Eventually, around the 60th reading, I realized that there was no Martin Heidegger “over there” to be read. I realized that I am the conversation I'm having (which is contained in
Being and Time). In the same instant I realized that there was no Kant, Descartes, Socrates, or Plato. That all there was, was the conversation that I was 'Be'-ing while reading Kant, Descartes, Socrates, Plato, and Heidegger. Looking back now and having re-read some of those authors, I can tell you that Kant, Descartes, and Plato stop short of thinking all the way through to the 'truth' and at that point they have created “subject/object”, “animal rationale”, etc. Those concepts give you enough to allow you to form a conclusion but they don't take you to the 'truth' of what they were thinking.
Around the 71st or 72nd reading I woke up one morning experiencing that I was not the same as I have always been (subsequently, I referred to the experience as a 'leap'). I realized that 'Be'-ing is not a measurable, definable thing and that the ground I stand on can only be defined by me. The attempt to uncover the answer to “Who am I?” by using the world to define who I am will never give you the answer to “Who am I?”. That answer comes from somewhere else. The 'cosmic joke' that has been played on us is that the subject/object world is a very real illusion with lots of evidence for it.
If you spend your life looking for “objective evidence” you will always have the 'insatiable thirst' to uncover the answer to “Who am I?”, but you'll never satisfy that thirst.
One last thing. You can argue for or against what I said here. Your arguing will not produce any results or satisfaction. The only thing that will produce satisfaction for you is 'taking' the numerous 'hints' in what I've said and doing the work for your 'self'. Arguing for or against will not magically undo the work I've done and it won't stop me from 'Be'-ing.
