What reason or justification is there for us to know we will still continue existing for the next day, if any — Ephrium

Whether one knows if he will continue to exist in the future via reason touches upon the manifold interpretations of causality, and whether he is 100% existent each moment. I was reading through my writings and saw that at one time I was certain causal relationships in the environment and my interactions with it, while obeying laws of lineal causality, were only possible to ascertain as they paralleled an acausal faculty from the generative order of all, which is also in oneself; in addition, causality, unless perhaps intuitively or in the realm of abstract thought, is only possible by a series of conscious observations. In other words, acausality is the background of causality in the same way unconsciousness is related to consciousness, and we can all be said to be more or less unconscious but still unconscious to some extent.

One assumes he'll exist tomorrow because he doesn't realize often enough that, in a way, there is no continuity or causality or consciousness at the same time that a conscious observation is made and a constituent of existence excised and separated from the rest of the vacuum. When we aren't making observations and cutting up what exists, sequentially, what/where are we? At that point do we exist in a way that can be memorized one after another, attributed causality to, while being tricked into a need of anticipating more of the same unnecessary splicing of reality to itself by and by? Something of the whole man is always left behind or in the future or in some ineffable realm out of time and therefore inasmuch as we can say we aren't altogether here in a way that can be limned in the round, we won't be altogether here tomorrow either. So, whether you believe in the life review that comes with your head on the death pillow (perhaps in a hypna-gogic/pompic state of consciousness), if it does happen, it could oddly be said to be the only time while alive you really existed in a way the whole gestalt could be enveloped by a limited consciousness, and then it is gone soon thereafter. But since we are immersed in unconsciousness acausality (or universal mind or quantum vacuum or quintessence what have you, which we can't experience consciously) on all sides of the psyche in varying degrees from birth till the shade lifts and never fully conscious, we could never be said to be fully gone at some later time either.

Explain "Man is a social animal." Who is Man? Institutions? Bureaucracy? Media? Law? Sectarian? Market society? Two is company, three is a crowd. Is Man crowd psychology? Can Man socialize if there is no culture, economy, or popular mind ethos as a substrate for it? And if not, is it possible to wring from cultural norms and empirical expectations their inherent social decay due to interiorized sanctions and preexisting encoding/decoding authority and stereotypes? I prefer "man is a thinking animal."