[written 1980 when I was 28 • please wait for translation]
I will now try for the last time to clarify the paradoxical model based on epistemological considerations that have only now become clear to me.
Introduction, it must be said that the paradox lies in thinking itself, in our concept of time and moment, and I will try to show why a dialectical method is not sufficient, as it understands itself. Actually, it is sufficient, but the dialectical method had to conclude that its premises: separation are false, but the dialectical method does not. It accepts that reality must contain contradictions. But it is not reality that contains them, it is our thinking, language, etc. that contain contradictions, i.e. our way of knowing or understanding reality, which contains contradictions that we assume without proving that it necessarily must be so. And that is why I call the following method transcendental or paradoxical. Only the method, not the reality.
I will try to show that the assumptions about separation are false, not assume that they are false. I assume that they are true. We assume that reality really contains separation between subject and object, time and moment, form and content, A and non-A, etc.
We normally assume this because we experience it that way. But we have not yet proved that this form of perception is the only form of perception, or the only true perception. Theoretically, we can imagine that we could experience reality in several different ways. The fact that we normally do not do so is not any proof. The same is true of saying that reality is like this because we experience it like this. And that is not scientific, because the theory must be able to prove that it must necessarily be like this. And that means that it must be able to prove both the truth of its own assumptions and the falsity of other assumptions. Or it must be able to show that no matter what theoretical assumptions we start from, we arrive at the same result, even though it is theoretical.
And if the result of all this is simultaneously possible to experience, then the theory corresponds to the reality of 'reality'.
The most fundamental question is: 'Who am I?' That we experience ourselves as an 'I' is not sufficient proof that it must necessarily and always be like this. If I really am 'I', then it must also be possible to prove it theoretically, and to date I have not seen any proof of that.
The fact that this question is a taboo question cannot or should not prevent a science from casting doubt on the immediate answer to the question. We have learned from society that we are an 'I' and most of philosophy is based on this without being able to prove it. And if this is false, so what? Then philosophy at least cannot be the only form of perception, and theory must necessarily be false, since it proclaims its premise as the only truth.
The following is the most amazing thing I have ever experienced or seen. It concerns both thinking and perception simultaneously. It is the result of about three weeks of intensive thinking and perception. I will tell you how it happened later.