The modern confusion of objective knowledge with knowledge in general causes us to reject knowledge we cannot account for in objective terms. Or worse, it leads us to reject knowledge in general in order to legitimize our non-objective sense of life, which we cannot recognize as knowledge.

What is needed is not a choice of one or the other, but a way to relate objective knowledge to its non-objective counterpart, and this means relating to it and through it until one finally apprehends its ground by way of comprehension of its forms.

This does not happen on the terms of objectivity. There is a rejection of a kind in regard to objective knowledge, but what is rejected is not objectivity, but its apparent fundamental nature.


(The question must be answered empirically, but the answer won’t be empirical.)


The world is not a deception. The deception lies in what the world is taken to be. If the world is taken at face value, acceptance or rejection of what has been taken is equally meaningless: one has been taken.


Scientism — science as metaphysic — is a species of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the locked foyer of genuine religion. The solution is not to annihilate the foyer door, but to unlock it. To unlock it we have to look in our hands and recognize the key as a key.

2 thoughts on “Samsara

  1. I suspect our best bet is the machinization of consciousness and a graceful bowing out of our current conception of “humanity”.

    It’s possible that it’s merely the discomfort of existence that drives this suspicion, but, I can’t really come up with a solution for currently-human consciousness. Most of my respect for it is undermined every time I lose a little sleep and end up hysterical as a result.

Leave a Reply