Search the Community

Day 32 Tomorrow I'm going shopping and buying a "creation" notebook as I talked about in a previous post. It will be about making a debrief of the day as honest and precise as possible which will correlate the different conscious/personal data ("more or less controllable", in the Neville Goddard paradigm), and unconscious/impersonal. The most conscious data is the mental discourse and the imaginative process in general, what is not conscious is what is projected into the maya. Of course here we are still in duality, theoretically (idealist monism, philosophy of Neville Goddard, Berkeley, Maharshi...) and experimentally (Psychedelics in particular 5 MeO DMT, Awakening during meditation or yogic practices in general...) we can go beyond duality, but with our current level of consciousness we must always play with it and the simplest is to represent reality as such a duality, conscious/unconscious echo chamber. Neville Goddard wrote "emotion is the secret"; I see what is perceived as an emotion as a crossroads between the conscious and the unconscious. I have the belief that I can move my arm by thought, and this belief is justified in a whole bunch of ways; I do not however have the belief that I can fly and access to this frequency will therefore be automatically blocked as I seek it and therefore confront myself with the limiting belief. Have you heard about the paradox of the soccer ball that will never reach the goal? Because before crossing the 10 meters that separate it, it will have to cross 9.9m, then 9.99m, then 9.99999999999m and this to infinity. The objects of the maya, as limits, function in such an asymptotic way: The more you imagine it, the more you fix it. Even if I want to do something as simple as drinking water, if I overinvest impulsively (consciousness) in the image of drinking water, it will not trigger the motor part to experience bringing my bottle of water to my mouth and consuming it; It is the absolute persuasion that it happens, absolute if not just enough for it to take "time" rather than seeing the water directly teleport into my mouth, that allows the experience, otherwise I would be stuck like the ball 0.0000001 meters from the goal. That is why those who talk about manifestation insist on starting from the principle that it happened/is happening, especially not that it "should" happen. Feeling (once again the personal/impersonal dichotomy is an illusion of duality, in absolute terms everything is consciousness and there is no difference between "I" and "it", neo advaita 101 lol, which is conscious/unconscious, always in the sense used by Neville Goddard) is like a "back door" in the sense that it is an experience that is quite easy to induce by the human imagination, and at the same time quite tengible, objective to influence the conscious and therefore ultimately the whole echo chamber, the belief system at the origin of creation. This is the greyhound.

The freedom I speak about all the time. The freedom that is already the case but not for the individual. Not for the person. Impersonal freedom. Freedom to appear as it wants. Freedom is already the case. The individual can never be free because the individual is freedom appearing as that. Freedom appearing as not free can never be free. It can only appear as it appears and cannot become something. It already is. So if there's an individual, it's automatically not free because there just isn't two forms of freedom. Only "existential freedom" appearing as everything. .

God and god Query: Is God an abstract and meaningless idea? Reply: At first I was puzzled by your question, because it sounded as though you were asking whether God exists -- but you didn’t word it that way, and besides, I know you do believe that God exists. From previous correspondence, I suspect that you are relaying a question from skeptical acquaintances whom you aren’t sure how to answer. So I’ve given some thought to what they might mean by suggesting to you that God is an “abstract and meaningless idea.” Perhaps the difficulty is that the terms “God” and “god” are used in several different senses. Sometimes the term “god” is used for whatever it is to which someone gives his unconditional commitment. This is what we mean when we say of a greedy man, “His god is money.” There are lots of gods of this sort: Sex, Me, Power, Reputation, and so forth. Since almost anything might be someone’s “god” in the sense of unconditional commitment, I can see why someone might say that the term is meaningless. But if we ask what deserves unconditional commitment, there is only one answer, and that is the God whom we worship. Sometimes – although the term “god” itself is not often used in this way – people call themselves “religious” because they have elevated feelings. If, for example, they have feelings of awe when they look at the sky, they say they are “religious.” Since people may have elevated feelings about almost anything – from the Hubble Space Telescope to the Oprah Winfrey show -- in this sense too I can see why someone might say that terms such as “god” and “religious” are meaningless. But if the question is what ought to arouse our loftiest feelings, again there is only one answer: The Creator, whom we call God. Sometimes the term “god” is used for a being who has vast powers, like the beings of the Greek myths (or like Marvel comic book heroes). Though God is powerful, this is not what we mean by God. The “gods” of mythological were contingent beings like you and me. They didn’t have to exist; something would have had to cause them to exist. But the true God, as Christians understand Him, exists necessarily. He can’t not be. Those “gods” existed in the same way that you exist; they just had more of everything. But God is the answer to the question of why there is something and not rather nothing – why anything at all exists apart from Him. Those “gods” were products of human imagination. But there is, and can be, only one First Being. God, then, is not a meaningless abstraction, but the Being above all other beings. I can think of one more thing your acquaintances might mean in saying that God is a meaningless abstraction. They may mean that whether He exists or He doesn’t exist, it makes no difference; life goes on the same way. But if God is what Christian faith claims He is, then this is far from true: God is not only the First Cause on which all other being depends, but the First Meaning on which all other meaning depends. Apart from Him, life is absurd. He is the greatest and most praiseworthy thing. Surely something is wrong with us if we cannot admire what is infinitely greater than ourselves. Since He is the supreme and uncreated Good, we depend on Him even to put the goods of this life in right order. Without His providence, we are constantly tempted to do evil so that good will result. Without His grace, we cannot be forgiven our wrongdoing. What is impersonal cannot forgive; morality, as such, has a heart of stone. Without the same grace, we cannot be healed of our brokenness. Moral discipline can accomplish something, and that is good, but eventually it hits a wall. Without the same grace, we cannot make sense of our suffering, because we cannot offer it to be united with His sacrifice for us. Finally, even in the unlikely event that we have all this world offers, we are compelled to ask, “Is this all there is?” That which cannot be found in this world must be found out of this world. In the vision of His face is that perfect fulfillment which leaves nothing further to be desired. jbudziszewski's blog Copyright © J. Budziszewski. Site information. RSS feed.

@Breakingthewall This still sounds like the idea that one day selfish and evil people will get what they deserve like the just world fallacy. My father used to preach to me about how evil people would one day get what was coming to them as he read the bible to me. I'm not convinced that these types of people are horrified at what they have become. My understanding of karma is much more nuanced than the fancy dressed up way of saying selfish people will ultimately fail. I see karma as multi dimensional and not just as a moral calculus. I see it as multi generational with extremely complex consequences which cannot be clearly calculated. For example there can be karma from my family of criminals which created intergenerational trauma by creating a chaotic environment. Of course I ended up being hurt deeply without asking for any of this. Me being hurt without any fault of my own is a consequence of karma spanning across generations. It is not wrong or evil. Karma is impersonal even if it means innocent people get hurt because of it. Here is how my father described karma. "I am a good, honest drug dealer. I don't mix my drugs with rat poison. My crack is so good that my customers constantly come back looking for more. I end up making even more money off of this. This is a sign sent from God that I am a good person and what goes around comes around. God is rewarding me with more money and customers for this crack. I don't really believe in the devil, but I do believed that evil people will get what's coming to them."

I agree, there's something special about meeting a saint IRL It's true that with geniuses is more about what they do and give to the world than themselves. Their inventions and insight are impersonal and evolve beyond themselves in a chain like fashion. It's a contribution to the body of Knowledge at the end of the day. That puts it into perspective. Awakening is that which you didn't know you desperately needed.

@Fran11 I wouldn't say you are coming from ego, I would say you are coming from the perspective caused by a drug experience which is necessarily impermanent because it's just a drug experience. If you worked up to that on your own worked hardware then the duality you're creating between an impersonal inhuman "oneness" and then "the human dream" would collapse.

I agree. Here are some distinctions about suffering from the Fourth way. Four types of suffering Unnecessary Suffering, Unavoidable Suffering, Voluntary Suffering and Intentional Suffering. The first is Unnecessary Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that we incur because of our unreasonable attitudes and expectations towards others, from our ill-will, hatred and rejection of others, from doubt, possessiveness, arrogance and self pity. In other words, suffering arising from our self-importance. The second is Unavoidable Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that comes to us by accident or from events beyond our control, such as interpersonal conflicts, war, disaster, disease or death. Third, we have Voluntary Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that we take upon ourselves in order to accomplish a personal aim, such as an athlete who disciplines himself to win a race, or a student who labours to get good grades. And finally we have Intentional Suffering. According to Bennett, this would be the kind of suffering that we take upon ourselves in order to accomplish an impersonal or altruistic goal, one that is directed more towards service to others or to the Work, and not for any personal gain. Bennett assumes that this is what Gurdjieff meant by Intentional Suffering. From an article on the second Conscious Shock https://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/philo_is_talk_ae2005.htm

What does it mean when someone says that Consciousness is an impersonal field. I don't get it... Sounds kinda negative.

If you claim to be love, how come you're speaking of it here as if it were an action, or an "impersonal person"? You mean yourself, right? Good and evil exist in relationship to you and to what you determine to be such, whatever that assessment is based on: morality, education, programming, culture, wishful thinking.

Well..you want to say that the absolute or the true nature of existence is not a "he"(or she )? Meaning it is not a sentient being like a human or animal or alien etc ? Well look at your own self . Aren't you a sentient being ? Why is it so far fetched to think the source of you as a conscious person is also a conscious person? In the end ..The duality between personal and impersonal must collapse at the absolute level because like I said its ineffable and beyond words . You can call it absence of limits..you can call it god ..you can call it "42"..etc these are just words . The thing which the words point to can only be accessed by the spiritual seeker himself. That's why different religions and spiritual traditions describe the absolute in slightly different ways..it's impersonal In Hinduism but personal in Abrahamic religions. Etc

The only contradictory point I see in this analogy is the dreamer who can do whatever he wants. This would imply that he is someone, God, and I would say (or better , it's 100% sure) that ultimately there is no one, no will or intelligence. These are secondary creations. When everything dissolves what remains is the total amplitude that is, and it seems that given its absence of limits it flows creating cyclical structures and it cannot not do so, it is the nature of reality, and it is impersonal. The personal is the illusion, not because it is false but because it is a relative creation of reality reflecting on itself that occurs due to the incessant flow inevitable due to the permanent instability of the infinite given its infinitude Absolutely 100%. Without fully assuming this reality you only navigate on the surface, you cannot go deeper.

Written Tue Jan 7 5:40 PM Eastern I will eventually do 15 minutes of mirror staring watching the energy and dreams stream across and in my right eye. I will eventually stare at the Leo voodoo doll while listening to the ohGr album undeveloped, watching the energy and streams alter the consciousness of Leo and its relation to space, time, mystery, and eternity. But after posting this I will transmit the dream into Leo's future night. The clear intent is that the first dream becomes an impersonal white misty energy that coheres the energies of his ongoing dream and grants him lucidity. He has a physical body (though not recognizable as his physical Las Vegas body) standing in a room with white tile floors, white tile walls and ceiling. Blue flashes of light are in the room, they merge in patterns until a mirror appears, a normal mirror. Leo sees my face. He immediately wakes up and the dream does not fade from physical memory or mental working memory, it is glued and sticky. He treats it as a psychological event. Now he has the choice to enter back into sleep. If he enters back into sleep he returns to his normal dream routine but with an added force of magnetism projected into its stream of images, things are more coherent at lower neurological levels than usually they would be. When he awakes he remembers still the first dream I sent to him, for his own subconscience and tendencies could not unstick it from the system, it is etched in memory. If he neglects to go back into sleep the dream obviously remains in conscious memory.

In the beginning and mid stages of the Awakening process, Reality is perceived as being what is, neutral or equanimous. That's till one discovers that Reality is the manifestation of Absolute Love. In the same way that when you add all colours you have white or LIGHT, not black and not a rainbow either. It is true that it's a cold love or an impersonal love, which can be disilusioning at first but as one opens up and surrenders more, it is seen that at all levels, Reality is a race or asymptote towards ever more Infinite Love. For something to exist it has to be loved enough for it to exist, in actuality being and love are identical. It makes my eyes wet and draws a smile in my face just expresing these great truths and being in tune with existence in such a way. See all that you care in your life is to feel LOVE Only LOVE is enough. Only LOVE scratches the itch. Only LOVE satisfies. That's what Reality IS What you and me: What everything happens to BE You're loved so much you're allowed to be miserable. Reality is in such a way that loves everything as it is, such is the brutal cold nature of Love.

Not sure if my answer will help or sound whacky; just ignore if it doesn't resonate: This is unconditional love/freedom/liberation already. Which means nothing is exempt. NOTHING. Even hate. There's no one hating. The energy of hate (as we call it), just is. We, as the individual believes it's our hate. We believe we're hating something, but we're not. It's just raw, unfiltered energy that feels like hate to the individual. It's not yours, but you can't see that because from the moment you identified with the body/mind/ and as an individual/person/human who is at the center of the Universe, everything now revolves around you. It's an illusion. There is no one hating. It feels like you're hating but it's hate appearing and you've attached to it because the person can't help but do that. It's what it does and it does that with everything. You want to be free but freedom is not for the individual. It can't be free. It's impossible. Why? Because freedom is already the case and it is impersonal. If you identify as a person, you have now conditioned it. It's so free, it can appear to not be free, which is what you're experiencing. If you want to be free of hate, you will have to not see hate, not define what you're experiencing as hate, not see yourself as a person hating. You and every other individual being has a sense of self, including myself. I'm not saying you need to do anything about that. Just recognize that it's not the case, what you feel is a result of this energy that feels like a separate someone and just notice the emotions come and go without judgment. Allow for them to subside on their own. When that feeling of hate comes up, let it, do nothing and sit with the feeling while going about your business. The more you fight it, the more it latches on. Take no action to try and do anything about it because that's how you strengthen it's attachment. If you don't want to feel hate, don't identify with hate allow hate to be there and it will go back from whence it came without any problems whatsoever. Don't give meaning to it, don't try to manipulate it. Let it be. This takes practice, but the more you do this, the easier it becomes and you will find yourself free of that energy because it's not responding to the energy that you're emitting anymore.

The first bold "I" was a little bit too much, that is why it (mind) had to go (second bold marking, and below): and there the "I" went... "my mind still made a distinction". That is what "I"s and "minds" tend to do. Sneaky stuff... Everbody can make up their own mind what these bold markings mean... Here is Bassuis version of the same process/topic: "At work, at rest, never stop trying to realize who it is that hears. Even though your questioning penetrates the unconscious, you won’t find the one who hears, and all your efforts will come to naught. Yet sounds can be heard, so question yourself to an even profounder level. At last every vestige of self-awareness will disappear and you will feel like a cloudless sky. Within yourself you will find no “I,” nor will you discover anyone who hears. This Mind is like the void, yet it hasn’t a single spot that can be called empty. Do not mistake this state for Self-realization [half-baked No-Self], but continue to ask yourself even more intensely, “Now who is it that hears?” If you bore and bore into this question, oblivious to anything else, even this feeling of voidness will vanish and you won’t be aware of anything—total darkness will prevail. [Don’t stop here, but] keep asking with all your strength, “What is it that hears?” Only when you have completely exhausted the questioning [killed/transcended the of the remaining subtle No-Self-Identity, resulting in True No Self, which is not a "No-Self" anymore but eternal infinite impersonal Infinite Consciousness/Reality] will the question burst; now you will feel like someone who has come back from the dead. This is true realization. You will see the Buddhas of all the universes face-to-face and the Dharma Ancestors past and present." [brackets] by WbtR And instead of reading the musing-collection of WbtRs archive below, better enjoy the holiday season! https://www.actualized.org/forum/search/?&q=thisdell&author=Water by the River https://www.actualized.org/forum/search/?&q=impersonal&author=Water by the River Can not some AI make Water by the Rivers retirement final? Any charming AI reading along? With the greetings of the seasons... ... Selling Water by the River "form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness form. "is the supreme mantra which is able to relieve all suffering": Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha: Gone, Gone, Gone Way Beyond, Gone Way Way Beyond: Uh what a Realisation! https://www.till-gebel.com/post/heart-sutra-as-spiritual-development-project-daniel-p-brown

So last night, I was headed to a friend's house and stared driving over there. My car's bluetooth picked up my music where it left off which was a binaural beat youtube video that said it was good for ADHD. I was listening to it earlier in the day while doing some other work. Two hours prior I did NN DMT, 3 decent hits from a vape pen thing, the experience lasted 10 minutes or so, as it normally does. Immediately after, I sat upright, cross legged for open eyed meditation. Strong determination style, allowing itches, the pain in my knees from being cross legged etc. During this time, it felt like the right thing to do to treat my thoughts as if they were coming from a little kid, I would give them an inner smile. I meditated for about 1/2 an hour then started getting ready for my drive. Getting ready took me another hour and a half or so. Now back to the drive. At some point during the drive a sudden sense of having lost complete control came up. My car had gone from being driven by me, to me being pulled along by the car!. Each traffic signal, every car, every person on the sidewalks, the moon, the night . . perfect and uncaused and impersonal. The acceleration of the engine, each transmission shift, the decisions to change lanes, all of it perfect. The movements of the body (and the frightening realization that it was vulnerable and could die at any time), the thoughts that came in, teary eyes and now a racing heartbeat. "What the fuck?" "Everything is moving by itself" "Am I gonna die? (did I say that?)" "Am I driving or . ." Were among some of the thoughts that came up. It felt like I was being pulled along by something I couldn't see, and that it had been pulling me forever. The absurd idea that his house was a "house" when I pulled up. The 16 minute drive was wilder than the NN DMT trip I had a week earlier or anything from just a couple hours prior. It's been on my mind all day today, and honestly even after writing this I'm not quite sure that I've explained what I actually experienced. I didn't want to wait too long to mention this as I'm still processing it as we speak.

Yes so true! Duality is not opposites, just both things existing at the sametime, if Love is created and exists then Hate has to exist and visa versa, its a circle not a separate entity or thing, its just as Humans we can chose to Love or Hate as an example, and this applies to anything, you can see or experience the impersonal God or the Personal God as he says, so that is one of our basic Capabilities, choice or Free Will in this regard... The problem happens when You have absolutist (the non dualist here) or the atheist (dualists, materialist, egoic types), both exist, we have access to both, deny one or the other, then your off base and half right half wrong, which causes suffering and further delay in knowing Truth as it is!!

Thank you for trying to make a world a better place with your knowledge that you've gathered through a thorough, sincere, truthful, impersonal, carefully analized investigation, brother 🙏

Seriously? Is that how you refute solipsism? By saying there is no self in the first place which is said to be the only real self in existence? Do you really think nobody has ever brought up this objection before in the countless solipsistic debates on this forum ? And Besides..I call this intellectual suicide. There is no self ..no others ..then there is what ? Pure unbroken impersonal consciousness floating around in the middle of nowhere.....? What to make of this ?

When I go to McDonald's I feel like a beast that is being fed. I don't think there is any place that is impersonal, mechanical and where they make you eat in a more industrial way than McDonald's. I used to go like twice a year or so, if it was still cheap I would go from time to time but even eating that crap isn't cheap anymore.

@Breakingthewall that seems like a good point. I will definitely try to see my family as an impersonal force no matter how much it seems personal when they weaponize my trauma against me, intentionally humiliate me by capitalizing on my vulnerability, and many other things. Sometimes I take this personally and they want me to take it personally. They are a consequence of impersonal forces which created humans who are incapable of taking responsibility for the harm they cause. I still have a hard time not feeling hurt or triggered when they repeatedly control the narrative to place all blame and humiliation on me. These feelings are not personal because they are a consequence of impersonal forces. It is like I'm getting a disease which in turn creates suicidal thoughts. When I attempted to love the unlovable, I intended to apply to my family as well. I'll try it this way as well, but it will take practice.

Interesting attempt. I never tried that, I don't think it's necessary. I don't think you have to love the Japanese who stuck katanas in the vaginas of 12-year-old girls in front of their parents, like: oh yoshimura, even if you like to torture babies I love you, give me a hug, but rather see them as an impersonal force of reality, a movement caused by tides of reality that takes place, such as an accident or an illness. yoshimura is not a guy you can love or hate, it's the same as an earthquake or a plague, something that happens. Same than any other thing or human, humans are not different that things, anything is personal, is just movement. If you see in that way maybe you can see them without emotion For me the difficult thing is not love that guy, is accept the situation when I'm in the shit, the great suffering, desperation and loss, when life is darkness see the light, because everything is the same substance, you, everything are facets of you. Then, being human, accept the negative and be open to the positive at the maximum. If you deny the negative, deny the positive, you live in grey area.

I know. Good god, now I will not get your lovely nonviolent metaphor out my system for a looong time, everytime I will look at a screwdriver. Razard had certain Awakenings that he probably will continue to interpret and express in his own ways. Everbody can judge for himself how holistic, logical and coherent and loving that ends up. I personally would "unpack" or interpret these awakenings a bit more carefully, more impersonal, more like Indras Net, but who am I to spoil or judge the gig. I am quite happy that you do the debating, then I don't have to . Been there, dont that, and of course less than successful. But there is for sure development to be seen in his content & style of writing, less ego and such, so thumbs up & bon voyage! Besides, talking/writing to "others" trying to convince them of "Absolute" Solipsism is the ultimate joke. Whats the point, besides hallucinating & falling for a very serious & determined "convincer"-illusion? So chapeau to all appearing actors in the mighty River, of the mighty River, for the mighty River. PS: All of ya don't exist, only I do. Whadda say? Answer: Not today darling...

I just like that it puts everything into an impersonal perspective. Like a trump supporter is just where he is at.

Hello fellow actualizers, thought I might share a write-up from my philosophy book, '7 Provisional Truths: How We Come To Know Things, And Why It Matters'. In this section, I explore the dichotomy between Absolutism and Relativism, while offering a more pragmatic 'middle way' for thinking about knowledge, grounded in the role that our minds play in constructing an experiential reality. Hope you enjoy! ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The Enactive Approach How can we navigate between the extremes of unyielding certainty and paralyzing skepticism? One method is to chart a ‘middle way’ that’s grounded in our lived engagement with the world. Mind you, this ‘middle way’ doesn’t mean finding a lukewarm compromise that’s halfway between these opposing sides. Rather, it involves rejecting the game entirely, and shifting to a new playing field with a fresh set of rules for thinking about certainty. Our name for this framework is Enactivism, and its course-correction emerges from acknowledging the active role that minds play in ‘bringing forth’, or enacting, an experiential world. Having left the old playing field behind, Enactivism threads a course between two traditional opponents: Absolutism and Relativism. The former contending that knowledge is strictly impersonal; perhaps best personified by the statement that ‘facts don’t care about your feelings’. While the latter attests that knowledge is inherently perspectival, meaning that it’s unavoidably interpreted through a set of individual and social circumstances. Our decision to name this framework Enactivism is no accident - 'enact' means to 'carry out' or 'bring to fruition'. The etymology of our term hints at its core hypothesis: that knowledge is constructed. The key insight? Knowledge doesn’t exist ‘out there’, as a fixed feature of some ‘neutral’ Reality. Nor does it emerge as a pure invention of an isolated mind. Instead, it arises at the intersection of mind, body, and environment, through a dynamic feedback loop we call world disclosure. The crux of world disclosure is that our minds give us an experiential Reality to live in that comes pre-arranged in terms of our needs and capacities. Enactivism extends this insight by showing that knowledge emerges from the relational process between a living body-mind and its environment. Far from being passive receptors for ‘external’ inputs, our mind works in tandem with our living body and our environment to actively construct an experiential reality. The most impressive part? Most of this occurs beneath conscious awareness - our minds' considerable effort to construct an intelligible reality is largely invisible to us And while this generative process can lead to reliable knowledge about Reality, what it can’t provide is absolute certainty. Our knowledge remains inseparable from our lived perspective within Reality, and the perspectives of living minds are necessarily bounded by biology. So does this condemn us to be forever isolated within our individual perspective? Far from it! As we’ll see, our shared evolutionary heritage makes possible stable forms of knowledge that are broadly applicable. An additional aspect of Enactivist epistemology lies in its insistence that Absolutist and Relativist accounts are true, but partial. What this means is that both viewpoints contain elements of truth, but are partial in the sense that they miss the dynamic interplay between observer and observed - how mind and world define and shape one another in a dynamic feedback loop. Armed with this insight, our Enactive approach will aim to synthesize aspects of these two opposing accounts, while rejecting key assumptions from both. Enactivism rejects the shared assumption that knowledge is primarily conceptual, and mostly a matter of holding beliefs. As we’ve seen, this is flawed because it fails to account for how nonconceptual ways of knowing and being are central to everyday life. Our extended survey on the centrality of Situated Coping for everyday forms of knowing and being was an articulation of this precise point. Another area where Enactivism parts way with both camps lies in another one of their shared blind spots: treating knowledge as disembodied. This oversight has direct implications for how perspectives shape knowledge; both Absolutism and Relativism miss the mark here, though for different reasons. Absolutism gets it wrong by ignoring how perspectives inevitably shape what counts as valid knowledge. While Relativism falls short by fixating on the social and cultural dimensions of knowledge, overlooking how our shared human perspective within Reality opens the door to forms of understanding that transcend individual and societal contexts. Lastly, Enactivism shatters a final cornerstone of these opposing views: that there's an absolute boundary between ourselves and the world. It rejects the notion that Reality can be neatly divided into an 'external' world of objects and an 'internal' world of experience. As we’ll see, this taken-for-granted divide dissolves under closer scrutiny. This perceived boundary typically masks a deeper assumption: that one of these domains - internal or external - is more ‘real’ than the other. We can see this in materialist perspectives that try to ‘explain away’ consciousness, arguing that minds are nothing more than an arrangement of matter and energy. On the flip side of the coin, certain spiritual perspectives contend that physical reality is a mere illusion created by our minds. Both instances are illustrative of reductionism - trying to ‘explain away’ a particular phenomena by conjecturing that it’s in fact a property of something else. As we’ll see, one of Enactivism’s core aims is to sidestep this tug-of-war over what’s ultimately ‘real’, in favor of a pragmatic perspective grounded in everyday experience. A guiding insight of this pragmatism could be summed up as: no unmediated access to Reality - that our embodied perspective within Reality is what’s ultimately ‘real’ for us. Precisely because it’s only through this perspective that we have access to a world of people, place, and things, theorizing about what Reality ultimately 'is' is beside the point - when what we actually care about is what Reality is for us. This shift in focus opens a more fruitful path forward. By questioning the fixed boundary between ourselves and the world, we can explore our interaction with these domains without falling into the trap of reductionism. Enactivism's key insight? The divide between 'self' and 'world' is mentally constructed - indeed, the world itself is indispensable to what minds are. With this groundwork in place, it becomes clear why Enactivism offers a compelling 'middle way' for thinking about certainty - without succumbing to a half-hearted compromise between two played-out extremes. Yet instead of a stubborn refusal to find anything of value in these camps, Enactivism reveals how their partial insights can be synthesized into a fresh perspective for reflecting upon our lived experience. The cornerstone of this synthesis? It lies in recognizing that while knowledge is perspectival, perspectives aren’t boundless - they’re grounded in a shared biological and evolutionary context. As a practical matter, there are fundamentals that human beings can and must be able to agree upon to have functional societies. In every society, people fall in love, have children, get sick, grow old, and die. While the meanings we attach to these experiences vary across cultures, their universality creates common ground for shared understanding. So that’s the gist of the Enactive approach. What’s to follow is a brief followup on the Absolutist and Relativist viewpoints which Enactivism offers itself as an alternative to. Our aim is to unearth the basic assumptions behind both viewpoints, while excavating the partial truths contained within. Lastly, we’ll tie this all together with a look at the meaning crisis that’s unfolding within the West, why this crisis calls for reconstructive epistemology, and how Enactivism can play a small but promising part in bridging these divides.