AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL APPROACH TO OUR HAND IN FATE

as much of a contradiction as it sounds, it is an impossible task to look at a chair without looking at a chair; this is because (1) the chair exists in relation to my own existence (similar in application to the assertion of descartes “i think, therefore i am” from the ‘mediations’ section of his text titled ‘discourse on method’) and (2) there is a biologically active effort in our energy, whether is be conscious or subconscious, for the mind to understand that thing as it is. in contrast, we may think or speak of a chair without looking at a chair, but again our thinking/speaking of that chair is dictated on the fact that we understand what a chair is. this leads me to question: what then, is to be said about things that we don’t understand? concepts, actions, people, circumstances…

in aim of trying to tackle this inquiry, i think that regardless of whether or not our mind perceives it/them as knowable or unknowable, say for example the concept of “fate” in relation to “tomorrow”, wherein we do not know what will happen in full detail tomorrow and so unconsciously surrender to a segment of the said (or unsaid) power of fate to construct what takes place in our life, the fated circumstances that unfold and their ability to be known do not matter. we as a human species do not understand fate innately or in entirety with any sound truth because there is a complex and individualized approach to its position in the ‘greater whole’ of our existence; there are many valid arguments in favor of proving the truth of fates existence in our everyday lives, but not one singular avenue which is more or less ‘sound’ - this, i argue, makes our knowledge of the concept of fate both apriori and aposteriori (similar to the deduction about a chair which i aimed at above). fate could be understood through a posteriori means (via personal experience with divine timing/serendipity/coincidence), but i also do not have to know of fate through such experience(s) in order to know that fate is directed by energy output.

back to the chair - my energy is directing at the chair, conceptually through thought/word or physically upon seeing, and my mind is understanding its essence accordingly. what if someone blindfolded me and said that the chair was in front of me when it actually wasn’t? i have the free will to choose whether I believe the person’s word, or, doubt it… IN ORDER TO BELIEVE HIS/HER WORD, a sort of “blind faith” would need to be necessitated on my end energetically in order for my mind to conceptualize the existence of the chair as true. YOU SEE IT IS THE ENERGY THAT SHAPES WHAT OUR MIND ‘SEES’ - NOT THE RATIONAL CAPABILITIES OF SUCH WHICH SHAPE THE ESSENCE OR validity OF THAT THING; AND SINCE IT NOW FOLLOWS THAT THERE IS CLEARLY NOT A DUALISM BETWEEN OUR ENERGY AND OUR MIND, but rather a symbiotic marriage between the two, we also possess the individual power to interplay between both in terms of the creation of any outcome in our reality... in conclusion, energy directs the mind, which directs energy, which directs our fate. through subversively re-conceptualizing our words and thoughts in terms of what thing/outcome we want to exist from what we do not want, we can guarantee for ourselves the constant active position in the unknowable nature of our fate instead of am inactive blind surrender…