A friend recently told me that my entire conception of reality and perception was utterly useless. Sure, it maybe made logical or intuitive sense, but what, if anything, could you do with it?
I’ve been thinking a lot about that question. What does nothing being objective tell you? What, in an antiobjectivist philosophy, should you do? Is this a philosophy? I’d always thought of it as just an observation. And then I got thinking, that the problem with any philosophy is when it stops being observation. When philosophy makes assumptions about the way the world works, instead of just looking at how it is. That the truest understanding I can have comes from a place where I make no assumptions, and my whole philosophy is observation. Here is what I observe:
When I say nothing is objective, I don’t mean that everything we perceive is wrong or limited and there is some other objective reality out there about which we are wrong. I mean that nothing, and absolutely nothing, is objective. This goes on to mean that everything we perceive is as objective as anything ever can be. That is to say, subjectivity and objectivity are not distinct because there’s nothing to compare either to. Nothing is objective, and everything is objective unto the maximum objectivity that any reality can have.
Contained within this is the parallel idea that two contradictory truths can both be true. That what is contradiction from one angle is oneness from another. That not only is everything distinct, and everything is one, but there is even both distinction and oneness in the distinction between distinction and oneness. Duality is both true and false. This includes the duality of the distinction between duality and oneness.
What the idea of no objectivity tells us is that we must rethink the entire way we think of difference, contrast, dualism. That they are all both true and false. That I am not you, and I am nothing but you, and both are utterly incongruous, and also, true.
The answer is not so very different from the philosophy of objectivism. Objectivism speaks of rational self interest. Antiobjectivism speaks of the oneness of self and all, the oneness of the difference between the two, the oneness of contradictions, and of contradiction and oneness. That your self interest is the collective interest. When you stop denying that oneness, and accept that oneness contains duality, then what you should do is simply whatever it is you do do. Because everything is selfish. The delusion is not the self. The delusion is that the self is anything other than one. That there is anything outside the self.
That it is both this, and that. That it is balance between the two. That balance is a myth because you are not balancing opposites, but balancing two things are themselves already one. That you can only ever be your limited self, and that being your limited self is not different from being one with everything.
The delusion to break through is not that you are separate. It’s that your separateness is anything other than oneness.
You begin to live in harmony when you give up the delusion that you’ve ever been doing anything else.
That harmony is not only the natural state, it is the only state. That perception is reality. That the only time harmony doesn’t exist is when we believe it doesn’t, because what we believe is all that can ever be real to us. When we understand we already are in harmony, that is when we are in harmony.
What accepting no objectivity means is accepting yourself, allowing yourself to take up whatever space you fit into, allowing that space to change, to truly understand that you can never be anything other than what you are. That the answers are already there, built into the questions. That questioning is itself the answer