Who am I to you? Who are you to me?

Cristopher:
Can you trust yourself?

The same self that has been affected by the afore-mentioned “confused confusing”
environmental factors right from childhood; and concepts of right/wrong, sane/warped
have been attacked even before some basic foundations have been laid? Without external
influences, are we even sure we would turn out fine with reliable inner voices?

Also, regarding the “society”, it is made up of people like you and I, and so may not always be wrong if individually they heed their inner voices (if this inner voice is reliably right).

Me:
Indeed:

Who am I…?

Is this “I” an isolated random phenomenon?…

Is what I call “my life” a subjective story shaped by my concepts of right or wrong, is my “personal experience” only my own, am I only a sum of different confusions and mishaps?

Who is there to tell?…

Who – or What – is responsible for the clear perception within me, for “my” real successes,
for the true and authentic achievements hitherto?…

What can you rely on at the end of the day, when smashing successes turn to be
failures, and failures success…?

What is there to be trusted…?

Can I know anything for real?…
Indeed, do I know myself in order to trust myself?

The question can be also posed like this:
Do I know others in order to rely on myself?

Where do “I” begin, and where does the other fellow humans “finish”…?

Likewise, where begins the “internal” and where “the external”?

If my relation to you is “warped”, how can I ever stand upright? Meaning that
in order to trust myself, I have to trust you too…cause you and me is the problem,
the real discourse…the very foundation of anything.

Consequently, where there is a steadfast foundation built on trust and reciprocity,
we would turn out fine with our reliable inner voices.

We give names and labels in order to escape direct confrontation with Life

His comment:
Words may be grossly inadequate. However, we have to make the most of them for expression and communication of knowledge, as they are what we mostly have.

Is that a principle in philosophy that one goes the negative to understand deep things? If It’s so deep we can’t directly express It, is there a guarantee that knowing what It isn’t, will bring us any closer to grasping the concept? Besides, how much do we know of the simple things we experience everyday for us to claim they cannot be anything deep (or be close to the meaning of It?

Me:
Principles can never yield life, no matter how well-formulated they are, can you see this…?

With other words:
When we say “philosophy” we have already pushed away the truth, creating a distance between us and the presupposed object we want to acquaint us with.
Whenever I hear someone telling me “Oh, what you just said is so smart, really philosophical stuff”, I realize it´s just another way of saying that they are not interested in any further inquiry, as they have already “labeled” that thing, distancing themselves
from it – end of discussion.

“Why should I come to grips with things when it is philosophy´s duty to do that…”- they tacitly say. Giving names to things, derives from a blatant refusal to explore, which is basically fear to find out things for themselves. “God knows what we may find out about ourselves…”

We have to be indeed careful with words – usually we terribly misuse their significance, again, due to fear to explore and question ourselves and our verbal reflexes.

I am referring here to the word “deep”.

Which are the “deep things” and which aren´t…? Who decides as to which is deep or superficial?…Where goes the limit really…?

We are so incredibly biased in our “comprehension”, so going the “negative way” is almost a condition to interrupt the natural course of our blunt logic.

Mind is always conditioned by its acquisitiveness, looking for safety and guarantees,
that´s why it invariably fails to impartially fathom anything.

So the problem is not that it is “too deep” or “too simple” to express it directly, the problem is that Mind will most assuredly misinterpret and deviate the whole thing according to its conditioning.

Concept is mind´s way to divagate from the Actual. Concept is thus resistance to directly confront What Is, a hollow and vain attempt to subsume and interpret Life according to our preference… – meaning that “concept” can never ever grasp anything for real…

Ultimately, there is no guarantee to anything, and that makes our existence a worthwhile adventure.

The question is whether we are aware that Life is a Cosmical Occurrence. Cause if we are, there is no longer any distinction between “simple” or “deep”.

If we are not aware of that, both simple and deep things, will be merely different inane degrees of hypocrisy and pettiness.

Truth – the greatest fiction

I can say that what you may call “my life-experience” surpasses any fiction and metaphysical common-sense, and that reality – the so-called reality – it’s nothing but a widely accepted concept, something to defend us see the truth …

Yes …Truth – the greatest fiction …

What about you, have you ever experienced something that made “reality” seem a
single-minded choice?