dead-ends (but open to help)

I kept going so far that my metaphysics were synonymous to my epistemology, when all I wanted was for the epistemology and metaphysics to independently exist. I have taken my desires and run from the object of those desires. I want so badly to believe in empiricism, but am left with only my own rationalism. I am lost in phenomenology.

It rains and I run and it feels real (I am running on this earth no one can agree exists), but all of the confusion is born in my mind. We all have the same logical devices, the same physical neurons, the same mysterious Cartesian mind (if the Cartesian mind cannot be accounted for by any empirical argument, which is then negated- the mind, or the empirical world?). We can collaborate our logic and rationality and as a society use the same processes. But every individual comes up with a different philosophy. The philosophers agree on processes and disagree on necessary conclusions concerning those processes. There is a flaw somewhere in this whole system: we are trying to prove truths with the logic of myths.

However, we cannot just all go with the pessimism of someone like Schopenhauer because it assumes that humans are biologically exempt of their own science that they place on non-conscious beings. Namely, it is in a species interest to believe in meaning and truth, even non-consciously. Negating life is biologically infeasable, and we would never expect it in an ant or a dog (Schopenhauer- yes I know I'm spelling that incorrectly- tries to placate me here with his indomitable "will to live" but I think that what he's really saying is that death or self-abnegation is the only way to escape biology. This truth implies that we should do so, which implies that we are the exception in this biological world, which may or may not exist).

Anyway, there is a gap so much of the time between our processes and our conclusions, and that's what I have my biggest problem with. I don't know if I could believe in phenomenology because it implies that every human mind is capable of consistently perceiving everything similarly. Are we capable of that kind of consistency? Isn't philosophy just contradicting itself in this sense by not perceiving things similarly? Philosophy philosophizes that philosophy negates philosophy... that is the result. It is like saying "the truth is that there is no truth." The statement is both true and horribly contradictory.

Yet we agree on the process, on the logic, on the framework, on the consistency of empirical interpretation. Why? Maybe the truth is the process. Maybe they are right- there are many truths, but no truth. Maybe the truth is that there are many truths.

I think that the culmination of all of my obsessing over philosophy and science is that at the heart of everything there is this great contradiction: our biology- which is created out of our minds according to many philosophers, and therefore dependent on our epistemology- negates philosophy. It isn't rational to say that it is biologically enhancing for beings to reflect upon their own consciousness or an empirical universe. What biologically makes sense is to not think of it, and to rather just focus on reasons for living, which non-human creatures seem to do. Therefore, scientifically (keeping in mind science could be just a production of our philosophy), philosophy doesn't make any sort of sense. However, philosophically, many believe that we created science. Why would we create a universe that negates its creator? Suddenly we have become some sort of god...

I do not want to end up at solipsism, which makes the least sense of all to me and yet is at the conclusion of many of my philosophical thoughts. I have just reached this point where if I believe in science, I have to believe that philosophical truth must obey bioligcal behaviors, but if I believe philosophy, I have to believe that my imagined science will be consistent and not contradict the philosophy that made it. Neither of these things has proven true.

Dead ends, dead ends, dead ends. I want to get to that gap between causality and result... I want to understand the human biology-defying chaos that exists there...

If science is true, why would the highest being (or whatever) on our planet-humans- do something so contrary to basic instinctive biology, like develop philosophy? And if philosophy is true, why would we as humans seeking a constant, if not phenomological, universe end up with a conclusion that defies our own reasoning like science does?

Josh IM-d me today. He's not supposed to do that. It was just a heart. Just a heart but it fit right into that box in me that has a fuse and was waiting for a bomb to light. Suddenly that pixel heart was exploding in me and every resolve of these past few days melted away in my imaginary pixelled flames. If my resolve to let go is what I should do, if it is the truth, why does it take all of my energy to maintain my belief and only a pixel heart to bring the whole thing down?

I'm sorry if I haven't made sense in this post. Please reply anyway. I really need people to reply. I really need you to help me in the process. I really need to reach a conclusion that can explain so many diverse conclusions from this same process.