So I just wrote this down now, after about 4 vegan white russians with 40% APV kahlua substitute: Taken from means objective to necessary, our ideas presuppose that which is true, but of tangible function. What, why, and how we see our lives unfold before our eyes, is like the telling of a story; at once our grasp of it is true, but from a sense derived from others; its reality remains an anomaly. From where does this discrepancy arise? Is it our ideas, so representative of the world around us, but so idealistic? Or is it our intention with the external message itself, so tempered but true?
Perhaps, then, as these ideas both resound so true within the Intellect, it is that we've nothing but terms, signs as they exist. To put onto concepts learned but none-the-less temporal; That conception, as it remains subjectiveis nothing more than what we individualistically know?
Where is the differentiation between selves? Why is relativistic thought so under rated?
As far as I, Matthew, am concerned, there is nothing outside of what I know; As far as I am concerned, this life of mine is strictly associated, necessarily, with all influence around me.
My life is necessarily described by my interaction and analysis of others; I am nothing without this reference.
Individuality is then something of a misnomer: it describes nothing more than your interaction with others: it is in effect the complete and absolute documentation of everything ASIDE from oneself
Individuality itself is, then, a product of the masses; for without the notion of the plurality, there can not be any concept of the self.
We exist, then, in the collective plurality of thoughts (something indicative of the plurality of selves) and not necessarily that idea which is congruent with the universal unconscious, but most definitely that of history.
One gives rise to another, via their actions.
This, in turn, gives rise to further actions, as are made apparent, necessary though, through, first and foremost, sense judgment.
Now this judgment itself is a carefully wrought being, for it presupposes so many careful interactions, be they personal or interpersonal, that judgment itself as a term , becomes universal; the set of judgment can be put on anything, but it is a specific value that it transcends the realm of the genuine to become the specific.
This specifically , however, retains the problems that were originally associated with general judgment via a tautology: anything comprised of something is made of constituent parts, and so the question arises, what are these constituent parts made of?