Existential Problem Solving

I came upon this line of thought (I like the metaphor of a line of thought because it represents an image of a line of moves in chess in my mind, which is exactly what I believe this to be) while dealing with what this framework calls the problem of frameworks. 

The problem of framework basically examines whether there is any grounding or consistent framework through which you can analyze the world at all. There is a deep sense of unease in accepting relativistic or nihilistic frameworks however even those themselves are consistent frameworks at a meta level. The brain, like Krishnamurti would say likes to function in total security. This problem deals with that very same meta level, and whether there is any consistent algorithm (for lack of a better word) to derive security or meaning or rather meta-meaning (if that is a word, since nihilism has in itself a sort of security built into it). Dogmatic ideologies would have you believe that the answer to this is a yes (these answers often reveals themselves to be farce and we end up with death and suffering to show for believing them), but there is no way you can verbally say no to this problem and be done with it. 

This is because this problem is (like most other problems when really analyzed) at the edge of linguistic representation. If I say no to this problem, one would think that they are conveying a sense of flux of being to describe what they are saying, but what you end up saying by claiming that there is no consistent framework is consistency at a meta level. Hence, the problem itself is alive in a sense. To solve it requires constant attention and evaluation of your present framework, and Bayesian updation of our beliefs. It requires constantly letting go of what seemed true in the past moment without fear. The essence of truth in the past framework stays behind even though we fear it does not. To solve this problem in reality, and not temporarily one must change the very mode of their being. 

So anyway, getting back to what I want to say. Even though I know this framework is eventually something to be discarded, I wanted to make this post because I find it rather beautiful and worth sharing. This also seems to me the correct method of dealing with these problems though perhaps its because framing these problems as such makes them more susceptible to such solutions. 

I also feel somehow ethically wrong in describing this conception. This is because there is a sort of violence in concepts and representations. Once you see something described systematically as an algorithm, it becomes extremely difficult to once again approach the problem as though it is new. It loses that quality of curiosity and interest with which you approach a new problem for the first time, and it makes you much more susceptible to that urge to follow authority, repeat etc. to pass of the responsibility of that problems to someone else. This is why expressing these ideas in this form is contrary to the original spirit in which they were conveyed. (I have abstracted these from what I have learnt from watching and reading Krishnamurti). As a word of caution, I warn you to not cling to this conception and look at everything for yourself. 

Okay, now let me start. The approach, which I call 'Existential Problem Solving' starts from radical skepticism. The thing about epistemological beliefs is that with all knowledge we end up having to sacrifice on either the certainty of knowledge or having to massively curtail what we do know. We start with the most basic questions of all, which would be considered rather dumb in most fields of enquiry. Examples of such questions can be- Do I even exist? What does it mean to exist? Why do I exist? How do I know I exist? If we do not fall down an intellectual path where we try to make compromises on what we think we know, we end up realizing that what there is in fact, no certainty at all about any of these questions. These questions are the ground of almost all fields of knowledge and our answers to them are themselves shaky. So, instead of accepting the axioms of any of the traditional modes of enquiry into the human condition (e.g. of philosophy or psychology), you enquire into it by yourself. Not by being caught in linguistic representation, but rather by confronting the problem itself as an alive entity. For example, if someone asks do you exist, You do not jump to answering yes or no. You enquire into your own experience and that alive process. The problem hence is not something that needs an intellectual answer. It is a method of enquiring into itself, to draw your attention to it and to reveal and unfold the answers it holds.

To summarize, the steps of such an examination are as follows.

1.    You start with the problem, any problem (because as K would say, a problem is something which is thrown at you, or perhaps even more appropriately something which you are thrown at) and take full responsibility for solving it. You do not ask for others to solve it for you.

2.    You are radically honest with yourself, totally aware of the movement of your own thought, and skeptical of anyone who tries to sell you an easy answer.

3.    You try to search for the answer through traditional or intellectual means. If you are truly honest, such answers will never be able to satisfy you. This brings about a radical humility and urgency when you say “I don’t know!” to the problem.

4.    As you hold absolute attention, the movement of urgency which tries to solve the problem and the problem itself, the problem undergoes a change, a dissolution and begins the movement of the solution, getting integrated into your being and you start living more fully.

To describe this process, I like the metaphor of watching closely a butterfly emerge from a caterpillar’s cocoon or of watching closely a flower blossom and die. That alive process is life itself and that is how we truly confront the problems of being.

As an example, we can examine the problem of meaning, which almost all of us face and hence can be considered a part of the human condition. I like Nietzsche’s description of nihilism as something we all have to struggle against at least once in our lives, like a sort of disease which immunizes and strengthens us to face what remains. An average person starts with this problem, but since all of us are so deluded, there are many pitfalls. For one, most people are just unaware or in denial about the presence of this problem. We see it, and we run away from taking responsibility for it. Either we fill our lives with meaningless hedonism (overworking is also a form of indulgence), or there is dissatisfaction about being itself (e.g. anti-natalists or culminating in suicide). There are many who take responsibility but are too good at lying to themselves. Without radical honesty, they often end up dedicating their lives to religions or dogmatic ideologies which sell them easy answers as I described in my other post and end up with nothing but a trail of death and suffering to show for the ‘good cause’ they dedicated themselves to. Even after that, there are many who have hubris in intellectualizing answers to the problem. Either through intellectualizing nihilism while thinking that they have got an answer or any other form of self-deception they start believing in affirmative or negative i.e. dead answers to an alive problem. Perhaps the answer I am advocating for is itself a form of such certainty, and isn’t really better than all those answers I describe as self deception, however the fact remains that this is my solution to this problem (as I described in my other post), and though I am open to discussion and change (because there is still nothing ‘I know’), I am unwilling to pass off the responsibility of solving this problem to someone else.

As another example, the problem of ethics is another thing almost all of us confront. It asks us what is a life well lived, what is 'the good' or what is right action or any number of such similar questions. It is easy to go down path of moral relativism, or to commit to staunch ethical frameworks, theological or intellectual, but both of these approaches are undergirded by immense hubris and self deception, for how can one's answer to what is a good life be detached from what they live. Intellectualizing unreachable and perfect ethical standards is good for judgement and criticism but a true answer to the problem of ethics for oneself involves a continuous living process of being as authentic an expression of our ethical intuitions as possible.

Many other such problems can be observed such as the problem of livelihood (i.e. what does it mean to make an ethical livelihood), the problem of wants (what is the relation between my wants and needs), the problem of your body (what is your relation to your body, what is health etc.), the problem of relationships (what is my correct relationship to the other, and what is this nearness which is characteristic of good relationships), the problem of communication (what meaning is actually able to be communicated through symbols and are we all lone islands in the sea of being). The defining features of these problems are that they lie at the edge of linguistic representation, that they are thrown at us (or we at them) without any justification and that they are alive processes which require continuous answers. Trying to answer these problems is like trying to contain in linguistic bonds some internal intuitions, but language is unfortunately in most cases, dead. In totally confronting these problems and finding solutions we are able to live more fully. Trying to give an exhaustive list or to even assume that there is one is self deception in the problem of frameworks, so I would like to refrain from doing so. The aim of this post was to bring your attention towards another way of inquiring into such problems.