In the spirit of going against the common narrative, of remaining open-minded, and analyzing the optimal mode of being from which to operate within to effectively orient ourselves against the set of all problems, it is important to analyze and seek to optimize the philosophical structure which we adhere to. If we value a meaningful existence, we ought to strive for the optimal interpretive lenses from which we use to comprehend the problem of our Being, from which we extract the manifestations of our actions and thoughts in order to properly navigate the world. We naturally seem inclined to do so, whether consciously contemplated or otherwise. We “seek” to understand and orient ourselves to the best of our abilities and for the philosopher such a process becomes explicit, and can be acutely recognized as such.

The philosophical structures that we “create” through experience are more or less optimal to the success or failure of our specific goals. Some structures of thought and interpretation may provide us with the groundwork to a more optimal conscious subjective experience, to which I attribute, among other spiritual and philosophical frameworks, the Buddhist doctrinal contemplation and immersion. A certain modification of our Being in our subjective experience, content of thought, and wellbeing associated with our psychic life, our actions and orientation, all become influenced in direct relation to the school of thought, religious contemplation, or area of inquiry that we immerse ourselves in, and pick up. That which we are engaged in influences the mode of being from which our experience springs forth. While ideological structures like Buddhism show to me a change in subjective wellbeing stemming from its modification of Being to one of pointed wisdom, aversion to unwholesome desires, confidence in discipline, and concentration on the content of experience in the present moment, it also performs a less than optimal modification in terms of social cohesion, productivity in goal-accomplishment, and diligent striving to pursue familial and societal goals, which, while they may not accurately represent our values, they ought to be pursued for their utility and long term significance to the quality of our lives. Although the Buddhist mindset provides for me a subjective equanimity, it fails to provide the thought that is optimal for the comprehension of reality as it is in itself to an adequate manner, such as philosophical schools such as phenomenology succeed to a greater extent, or the scientific deterministic mindset can provide. Yet the undertaking of one, the embodying and actualizing of content stemming from either source, necessarily implies an opportunity cost of the benefit of the other. This isn’t strictly speaking the divide between empiricism and intellectualism, materialism and idealism, it isn’t strictly confined to a primarily Buddhist mode of interpretation of phenomena and the phenomenological interpretation, it applies to every mode of being that can be pointed to as having an intentionality founded upon a philosophical structure. The modification of our being in response to specific framework or structure that we adhere to, play a crucial role in affecting the content of our experience.

It becomes clear that in our journey through life we ought to pursue that mode of being which is best able to navigate the set of all problems in existence. For different periods of life, for different situations, for different environments, in relation to different people, and times, we ought to conclude that there are better or worse structures to embody in order to manage the situation we find ourselves thrown into. This poses a problem for the philosopher, and for the contemplative who takes an interest in his own experience, as to which mode to embody, if one is to consciously direct oneself towards one, which one, if any?

Individual ideologies in a single structure prove useful and optimal for different things in direct relation to the significance and modification of that structure. But no single ideology is encompassing enough to subsume the beneficiality in regards to every facet of life. While Christianity may benefit the community through strong family and interpersonal struggles, it fails on the intellectual level, and even more so on influencing scientific discoveries. Every ideology is lacking in regard to certain situations, and all previously established schools of thought share in their deficiency to properly inform the nuances of all of life’s challenges and situational encounters. As society changes, as our lives change, as horizons broaden, so should our interpretation and framework from which to operate from. This requires a strict separation between our self-image, our belief structure, from that of dogmatic ideological possession. In the current political climate, with the expanding polarization between conservative and liberal parties, we become blinded to the argument, benefit, and utility of the opposite party’s viewpoint. In order to properly inform a correct interpretation of any political issue we must see the other sides views, in their positive and negative points toward any singular issue, or fail to gain deeper insight into the complexity of the issue at hand. The mere dogmatic adherence to one side of the political spectrum delimits our view into a merely “part of the story” comprehension, when the whole story is much vaster, thus the fundamental disagreement. There are good reasons why half the country bends strongly one way and the other in contrary ways, one side isn’t merely intelligent and the other ignorant, the thesis and its contrary thesis both hold weight, for good reason. It is in a transcendent viewpoint that realizes the intentionality behind each, the reason for the disagreement, the benefits and drawbacks, that can come to a satisfying synthesis which encompasses both views, and from that place of transcendence can work towards the unity and cohesion between different personalities, perspectives, and lifestyles towards and optimal government with policies that are inclusive rather than divisive. The more we close off our minds, the more we maintain in a mode of being certain, or are possessed by a singular structure, the less we are to gleam the whole picture, gain a comprehensive understanding of the topic, and thus are less informed as to an optimal stance on the issue and its resolution. This extends past the political sphere, to all realms of inquiry. The mode of being certain, of working within a singular rigid structure, hinders growth, hinders understanding, and limits the potential solutions and manifestation of actions to solely those provided by that structures interpretation. The more we become marked be a fallible mode of being, of opening up our belief structure to contain doubt, to be more inclusive to the unknown, the more options and potential solutions to problems become available to us. The more potential solutions, dependent on the more knowledge, the more equipped we become at countering dogmatic adherence and actualizing the potentiality that is more optimally suited to what we authentically, individually, believe to be most viable.

The more knowledge we have into the optimality of different modes of being in relation to situational consistencies supplies us with a bigger pool of options from which to choose from in the face of novel encounters. This, on its face, must be true. The more experience we have, the more knowledge, the more options and pathways available to us. The increase of knowledge, increases the availability of given solutions. The problem is oftentimes these pathways are dead ends, and we lose time in their development, but, if charted correctly, the pursuance of certain knowledge, in certain directions, can be utilized in the present moment for their beneficiality towards novel situations. How these are selected for, how we can instantiate them, and the best way to do so, is complex, and would require a theoretically infinite discourse in expression.

I always assumed my progression towards an optimal mode of being was linear, and improved as knowledge and experience improved, but this may be a false notion. The worry here is that what was once attained may no longer be available upon the acquisition of further knowledge. What is “best”, what is “better”, and the relationship modes of being have to the current situation which we find ourselves in, are all transient, and constantly fluctuating, not to mention our experience rooted in them becomes altered as well. Ought we to give up our search then? If our knowledge has provided us with experience that points to structures that are mutually incompatible, yet individually useful, how ought we to decide upon the direction to travel?

The aim in discovering the best life to live, necessarily requires the philosophical extrapolation of possible experiences, possible modes of being in relation to that “best life”, an explanation of morality, intentionality, and a thorough analysis of our goals. The implications of such a search become vaster the more we learn in any of these given domains, as always, we wish not to regress, we wish to progress, substantially, day by day, towards better and better ways of being. Is this feasible? Is it possible? We wish for it to be true, and we tell ourselves that every day we are getting better and better, understanding ourselves and the world we are thrown into more and more, that our mode of being is being improved, that we can better navigate the world today than yesterday, as experience opens up new horizons, as more situations and possible solutions are uncovered, we assume we are better oriented to deal with them. Are these assumptions true? They mustn’t always be, and we must remain open to the possibility that we have lost something which would be more valuable to us than we currently contain. The knowledge of lost knowledge itself is unreliable, it is merely a second order abstraction upon a memory that is no longer present for us. The narrative we tell ourselves in the present about the state of affairs in the past is merely an attempt in the present of recreating a moment gone to us, based upon the present state of things. It never can accurately capture the past, it is lost to us, and each attempt at recreating it, whether it is imagined and conceptualized in thought or articulated in speech, is merely at the most a second order representation. When we attempt to reconstitute the state of affairs in the past, we are merely doing so by building upon the order of re-articulation that we last devised, we are extrapolating upon an abstract extrapolation, and becoming further removed from the content. The narration is constantly modified as time passes, whether or not articulability increases or decreases, whether or not our comprehension of reality in the present moment becomes more or less deviated from the truth of the matter, does not matter, the narration is modified by experience, experience is entwined with time, and our re-articulability is modified by our past articulation of content.

The past is simultaneously lost to us forever, and inexhaustibly entwined with the present, as the future is as well. The future is forever nonexistent, yet always what our being is oriented towards, we live in front of ourselves, our experience is projected towards the future, in the present, as it is constituted by the past. The present we experience is merely the attempt to orient ourselves towards the future that is nonexistent, founded upon a past that is lost to us, and we find ourselves thrown into it by no choice of our own.

In regards to past modes of being, insofar as we recollect them as being more optimal towards achieving a beneficial mode of being, we ought not dwell in the relinquishment of a treasure that cannot be reclaimed, but rather, we must strive on, as it is the only option available to us. Strictly speaking, the philosophical structure which we seek to be the most optimal towards our present moment embodiment is impossible to articulate, but not impossible to strive towards developing, and in doing so, make progress. Practically speaking, we find better or worse ways of navigating. If Buddhism worked in the past as an interlocutor in mediating our conscious thoughts and interpretation of the world, yet we have so altered our being towards Christianity, and Buddhism is no longer the present mode of interpretation towards which we see the world, all is not lost. If we find our new mode characterized by Christianity, and reflect upon the good ol’ days of Buddhism when subjective experience was optimal, and find ourselves wanting, we are merely telling ourselves something that cannot be truly representative of the situation we find ourselves in. We are merely judging our present using thought in a manner that is inconclusive to the beneficiality of what we ought to do.

Properly speaking, we only transcend our past mode of being for one which we deem to be better suited to ourselves. Whether this is true in actuality or not, our change in structure is due to a perceived benefit, and it cannot be otherwise. Our beliefs about the world, and the manner in which we orient ourselves towards the world, works in full accordance with our perceptible ability to uncover valuable information, which is presented to consciousness. If we value something more than the other, if we move in any direction, it necessarily becomes that which we believe the acquisition of to be better constituting our current mode of being. We cannot believe something we do not believe, and we cannot act otherwise. Every moment, every thought, every philosophical structure uncovered in the present moment, is a representation, albeit in part (always in part!) of the Totality of our being. Every expression stemming from conscious direction, is an expression that denotes a significance towards the Being which we are. We cannot act consciously in a way that doesn’t represent our consciousness.

In short, we should be wary to conclude upon strict adherence to a single philosophical structure, as its breadth is less than optimal to cover the totality of novel situations, within a fluctuating milieu of interpersonal relations and individual development progression. As our lives and minds develop, as situations and potentialities become open up to us, the more versatile we must become in consequence, or suffer the price that an outdated mode of being carries with it. As we become more competent and capable, both in our abstract belief structure, and practical knowledge, our orientation naturally changes in the way we are embodied in confronting the world we find ourselves in. For the mind to lag behind the constant reorientation, is to fail to meet up with the challenges of the present moment using the tools we have available. In utilizing our rational capacities, and the ability to remain fallible as to conclusive structures which guide us, the better equipped we become to face the present moments unique difficulties. In relinquishing adherence to certainty, we open ourselves up to an authentic being-towards-the-world, one which best represents who we are, who we want to be, and is better suited to adapt to the environment we find ourselves in. We ought to be prudent in discerning the structures we are studying, their affect upon our psychological wellbeing, and their role in modifying behavior. As we collect more data in more domains, we ought to reevaluate what labels we attach to ourselves, and the repercussions that stem from such characterizations. The way in which we self-conceptualize ourselves (Self-Conceptualization Modifying Behavior), and the mode of being which is influenced by our pointed interests and time spent concentrating on a specific school of thought, must be recognized as to its influence in regards to the subjective experience of the present moment, and we ought to progressively move forward towards optimizing the framework from which our mode of being is propagated by, and which courses through every experience of our lives, that is, if we value our experience, which, undeniably, we do. The role of philosophy is to make this inquiry, uncovering, and direction optimal in its utility and in our understanding and conceptualization of it, with ends towards a more meaningful, fulfilling, eudaimonistic life.