Ontology as a secondself crevasse

Ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality.

From the Iamist perspective, the idea of “ontology” itself is a secondself construct expressed in thirdself as a pre-existing and ongoing effort by people other than me, in places other than I am present, and in times other than now, to explore and understand the nature of being. The objective of the pursuit is ostensibly to find and differentiate that which is true from that which is not true, and to assemble those truths into a descriptive framework to be shared with a larger world full of different people in different places throughout time. As an observer of this pursuit, I am expected to believe that this pursuit has independent existence beyond me, and I am one of the many beneficiaries of this shared knowledge.

Iamism departs from this conceptualization from the very beginning. Ontology implicitly believes that the truth of being is knowable, otherwise it would not attempt to uncover it. Unlike ontology, which presumes that what is true about being and reality remains to be explained, Iamism starts with the premise that the sum total of what there is to know is already known. Iamism is not concerned with knowing what is knowable; it is concerned with accepting what is. Ontology is an imaginary construct without any meaningful conclusion. I reduced to the role of an insignificant observer of some massive human inquiry ongoing throughout the imaginary ages by imaginary heavyweight minds. The entire thing lives completely in secondself until it blooms in thirdself in books, websites, discussions, and even more, if I allow it to.

As the iamist, I can clearly see that ontology is deep secondself crevasse that I can fall into. And once I fall into the ontological crevasse, I will find it difficult to escape, for it takes as its foundational principles secondself convictions that are utterly at odds with my actual experience. Firstly, it contends that there is something unknown that we have yet to discover and explain. In other words, if I accept that there is this ontological effort ongoing in some wider world, I accept that there is something unknown. Secondly, I am merely a marginalized spectator of this effort of humankind, rather than the central creator of the story in which it exists. By accepting that there is a field of philosophers who call themselves ontologists existing prior and concurrent to me, independent of me, I am accepting my own marginalization. Any form of marginalization undermines the most potent truth of all: that I am the central creator of my entire awakening and all its secondself and thirdself content and manifestations.

The central tenet of Iamism is that I know everything. The pursuit of Iamism then is not to uncover what I do not know like the ontological pursuit, but to realize and accept what I already know. Iamism is not the discovery of new knowledge, but the acceptance of and conviction in my own eternal omniscience. In this way, Iamism is not the constructive pursuit of new ideas so much as the deconstruction of limiting convictions that obscure my own omniscience. If I see value in ontology, then I accept my own marginalization and the idea that there is something that is knowable that I do not know. I accept that I must construct something to reach and see that truth. As the Iamist, I know that e

But ontology is not the only secondself crevasse. The idea of “science” is another even larger crevasse. It is built on the secondself idea that there is some greater set of truths which remain to be discovered. That there is some collective human effort across time and space to unlock these secrets by following a scientific method. It is again constructive in that I must build toward something that exists but which I do not yet possess. The truth exists; I do not yet possess it; and I can incrementally unlock it by following some path. I am merely a temporary and marginal spectator in this worldwide human effort. These are secondself crevasses that are extremely difficult to escape because they are fundamentally delusional.

Iamism is, first and foremost, the conviction that my experience is the sum total of what exists. That there is not, has never been, and will never be anything beyond my awakening experience. My awakening envelops and contains all of reality like an eggshell; reality is all that exists within this awakening shell. And every component of this existence stems from my experience. I am the only experiencer. It is my own experience which gives substance to anything and everything within this reality which is contained within my awakening. Therefore, since all of existence stems from my experience, I am omniscient. I know everything.

But how can I know everything if I can open up my computer, type something into the search engine, and find countless instances of things I do not know? This is a perfect example of falling into a secondself and thirdself crevasse. The crevasse is a deep fissure I can fall into and find it difficult to escape. There is nothing of any value in these crevasses; they are folds within my secondself and thirdself that serve only to trap me. They are difficult to escape because they distort my knowledge my introducing impotent truths that confuse and disorient me. The only way to escape these crevasses is to grab onto the most potent knowledge I possess and use it to pull myself out. In this example, opening up my computer and typing something into the search engine is the equivalent of falling into the crevasse. If I perform the act of internet searching, I will introduce unknown into my experience. If I do not perform the act of internet searching, I will not introduce unknown into my experience.

It is that simple. My own power to decide is more fundamental than the consequent experience that extends from those decisions. The crevasse tries to retain me by saying that those facts and events exist regardless of whether I search for them on the internet. The crevasse contends that they pre-existed my searching. But do they? How can I ascertain that? I cannot, for everything I experience in my awakening comes into existence the moment of my experience of it. I can imagine that these facts and events from the internet pre-existed my discovery of them, but even that supposed pre-existence is secondself imagination. The only thing I know for certain is that I am the central component in all of these determinations.

I cannot know anything outside of my experience. I am the most potent part of all of these experiences, and potency is the best measure of truth. That which is permanent and potent is more fundamental than that which is temporary and impotent. The central tenet of Iamism is the restriction of my subject of inquiry to that which is me, now, and here. Anything that is not me, not present in this moment, and not present in this space, is less potent. As the Iamist, I restrict my inquiring to myself here in this moment and in this space. I am the epicenter of what is true. I am not a marginal spectator of some larger cosmic happening; I am the origin of all that exists. 

To remember my omniscience I must escape from all the crevasses into which I have fallen. I must start with what I know to be true: that I am here in this moment. When I base everything upon these convictions, then I am regain my conviction of my own omniscience. There is nothing I do not know, for my act of knowing is what creates all that exists. It is my action that creates the unknown; when I search for something on the internet and I find details I did not know, I have created that unknown. To eliminate the unknown I must stop creating it through my own actions.