The ultimate reality is the life of each one of us as it is lived. All other realities, even god, are rooted in the “my life.” The bio-life of each one of us, i.e., life as it is lived, is where all things gain their life as they are lived in us. Taking care of “my life” is to take care of all that appears in my life as living. The universe that takes place in my life is the only universe. It has commonalities with others but will never be “the universe.” The notion that there is such a universe is an abstraction that is rooted in thought. The demand that all adhere to the notion of “the universe” is not only tyrannical but wrong-headed. It is an epistemic dream that science, politics, economics, society, etc. exist as independent realities.
What makes this ultimate reality mine? This movement or bio-life includes a phenomenal I-sense that is generated within phenomenal manifestations. The "I-think," "I-know," and "I-am" are circumstantially situated along with the movement of experience and as such they are felt phenomena,i.e., dynamic, animated a lived appearance. As an appearance it is an ephemeron, ever appearing and simultaneously dissolving. Reality is a movement, a flux that includes all three times--past, present, and future. Not one moment is devoid of all three times. This is not conceptual or contrived time but living time--experience as time itself.
******
The eye cannot see itself. The eye sees, but cannot be seen, even when looking in the mirror, the one in the mirror is the seen, never the seer. In awareness, self is not everything else. It is, without exception, the truly unique. So, what does it mean to call it “self”? Why that word? In experience, not theory, not concept, what justifies our use of that word? Is it a self? If so, how would we know? What does that word “mean”? How is “self” being used? The how is always accompanied by a when. Is there any other time when “self” is also present? This so-called “self” is accompanied by past and future historical and projectival aspects(?). Subjectivity, the wholly other to all that is, is never at risk of being found. The familiar “self” is used because it is familiar. Can anyone actually say what this word means? Is it ever what it is claimed to be? It rises and falls in living and dynamic contexts, always mercurial. It is no more a what than a who. Looked at very closely there is no one there. There is no one home. Then why call it “self”?
I don’t have any answers of the kind most looked for, to some degree I can address life as each one of us lives it. After all, the living of each one of us is the fundamental reality, is it not? When speaking history, politics, economics, literature, and many more languages, more often than not, the living and breathing life of each one of us as it is lived is not considered as a necessary ingredient of the narrative. Instead, we settle for imaginary beings--who may just as well be thought of as things--to discuss what is best, or politically appropriate, or medically applicable. Think about it, how often is a living being, in living and dynamic situations considered in any narrative context? Strange, to say the least, since it is this living that makes all of the others possible, even theology.
