I am asking my way out of nothingness, through cycles of assertion and doubt.

In this process, I must privilege an interior in order to exist at all—that is, to be an object of apparent knowing. And so I conceive of self and not-self, or Other. Their ongoing relationship is in principle the whole of Reality, or Self-as-process. I am this one, ongoing Self-as-process.

The Self-as-process becomes known to itself (that is, becomes self-as-object of apparent knowing) through cycles of faith and doubt. In the act of doubt, I become aware of my previous commitment to beliefs (since any action of self is a commitment to some sort of belief, implicit though it may be); and in the resolution of doubt (i.e. in the “leap of faith” that is further action), I create my self anew through a sort of self-declaration to which the environment, or Other, responds. The environmental response feeds back to reinforce faith or trigger doubt, and so on. So the Totality, or the Self-as-process, is an iterative process of self- and environment-creation through cycles of faith and doubt.

When I reify the self-as-object, and identify with it, I am left solipsistically alone, with such questions as: Can I transcend perspective? How can I see beyond how I see? How can I directly touch another? These questions are tantalizing and frustrating.

Perhaps it is enough to know that the self-as-object of apparent knowing, or ego, is a creation all along, and at a meta-level I am always One-without-another. Then, in so believing (and understanding intuitively), I become to myself the Witness of a dance between my self-as-object and the Other-as-object, who continually co-create one another dialogically within awareness.

Through this vision, I can hold myself to be both One and multiple, manifesting will to the Other, and responding in turn to the Other’s will; but able through internalization of this theoretical framework to access the perspective of Witness to the whole act.

Yet even this conception of the Self-as-process is a conceptual self-rendering, and as such it must be held lightly and provisionally. It runs the risk of being itself a reified self-ing and Other-ing, whereby the “Witness” is distinguished artificially from the “Witnessed.” This would encourage or allow for a position of detachment or indifference at best, and fatalism or dissociation at worst.

Instead, I place my faith in the Trinitarian Mystery that the Self-as-process is Witness, Witnessed, and Witnessing. All three are indeed One, but One which admits division into three “persons.” The Witnessed signifies, or is abstracted from, the Witness, as a symbol signifies instances. The Witness is that which is Real, prior to anything I may say about it, and the Witnessed is conceptual, the totality of that which I may perceive and say about the Real. That which is Witnessed can be held to be the process of Witnessing itself, as for example through my philosophy which I am elucidating as I write this. In turn, the process of Witnessing can be conceptualized as the Witness that is signified and its ongoing reaction to that which is Witnessed. So we see at the culmination of this philosophy the witnessed Witness reacting to the witnessing of the Witnessing: a perfectly tight loop that might be called “waking up.”

I cannot generalize this perspective. This is my own realization and testimony: it can only be made in the first person. But, if read in the first person, another can hold their nature as this one Self-as-process. Even as I re-read this, I doubt it; and so it is that assertion and doubt continue their dance, bringing me into awareness of myself. And if I re-commit to this standpoint, I create myself anew. It is a continual coming-into-being through commitment, or faith, and awareness of self in doubting.

This is why I have titled my book, “The Trinitarian Mystery: Escaping Solipsism.” The Trinitarian Mystery is the mystery of unity within multiplicity, and multiplicity within unity. Here, likewise, we see that the separation of self-as-object, Other-as-object, and their ongoing relationship form a single gestalt, which I have called the Self, or Self-as-process. And the Witness of this process that we may identify at a meta-level above is none other than That which is Witnessed and the Witnessing itself. The Self-as-process is unavoidably participatory: I as Witness, insofar as I see myself as an object of apparent knowing, am always embedded (represented) within the Witnessed, and my reaction to the Witnessed evolves the Witnessing.

How does this vision constitute in any way an “escape” from solipsism? It does not logically achieve this. On the other hand, the very act of conveying this vision in language at all is anti-solipsistic. It initiates a dialogical encounter with the Other, wherein my previously insular self-as-object is radically open to transformation.

In other words, rather than offering logical proof against solipsism, I offer a practical and experiential way to move beyond solipsistic thinking. By holding reality to be dynamic and dialogical, I take an engaged, open stance towards existence that transcends pure self-reference. The “escape” from solipsism thus achieved is not about proving the existence of other minds in an absolute sense, but rather about providing a framework for lived experience that renders solipsism functionally irrelevant. By adopting this vision, even as one lens among many available lenses, one naturally moves into a mode of being that is inherently relational and open to the world beyond the self-as-object of apparent knowing.

I am asking my way out of nothingness, through cycles of assertion and doubt. My publishing this is an act of faith; your response is from my perspective that of the Other, which will feed back to reinforce that faith or trigger doubt.

Anyway, these are my assertions. Please feel free to doubt!