Right, but what are you saying to me? ( I'm pretty sure I understand now what you're saying but --) Just say it! It's ok if it's simple in plain language. At least you'll be saying it straight.

It is not necessary to differentiate one's choice of prose from those of the past, in full, to thwart the development of claims of fraudulence((either may transpire irrespective of which)), in the same respect. Nor need it be the case, that such accusations wherever they may arise, are well-founded, if at all. For instance, take heed of the following;

One could say, 'you serve as a hollowed imitation of such and such author', which if taken at its face and stated as fact would be fallacious; it would be more appropriate to say, rather,'as I see it your choice of prose bears similarities with such and such author whilst integrating certain aspects from ever more different sources; it is quite eclectic.'

Therein lies a pertinent distinction, which makes its passage unaccounted for in judgement, and forgotten, more often than not.

(This presentation of mine would disregard the prospect in which one had sought to emulate a particular author to such an extent; though that course seldom arises, and is thus without even the faintest sense of generality.)

if I read you correctly, you're objecting to the charge of imitating past authors with the defense that you simply favor a similar prose style. Bolstering the defense: you note that you add elements that your alleged models lack; it's not just more of the same.

My characterization's not quite right though. You're objecting to the charge of fraudulence.

But, in my counterdefense, I never suggested you were a fraud. I suggested your approach would make you vulnerable to others who might suspect that. This is the difference I see: There's 'pretentiousness' and then there's feeling compelled to present one's thoughts in exaggerated ways. The former is a wrapper around nothing, while the latter is trying to preserve something valuable by wrapping it snugly in layers of borrowed splendor, as though it couldn't withstand an outside chill.

I think you do have plenty of value to say, and I think that your eccentric grappling -no bones here, it is eccentric, and eccentric's cool - but your eccentric grappling with ornate prose suggests you have all sorts of inventive energy. That's why I'm ribbing you, trying to nudge you. It would be cool if you could let some of that wrapped-up prose-energy loose - I think you have a lot to work with, if you could find a way to just speak freely. I'm going to be very blunt here : the style you've adopted may win occasional admirers, but it's going to be a red flag for most posters (including people who aren't vulgar philistines etc. It will turn away good posters.) Most people won't say this directly, they'll just click to the next thread and leave it be. But the style is an encumbrance, and it won't serve you.

But, I also think you don't need it.

Even if it feels weird at first without it.

(but also, seriously, if you want to just focus on the ideas on the thread, kindly (or bluntly) tell me to fuck off. I'll admit I'm derailing. I'm going off on this, because your post struck me largely as an experimental/technical prose exercise)

I objected to the accusation of fraudulence on my part on the basis that it remained destitute of merit, and bore no semblance to that which is the case, in truth. What came to follow therefrom, merely served to affirm further that sentiment as having firmness in its grounding, and thus a sense of merit((my own argument for its failure)). Though the latter I felt to be of little consequence in my standing, as my intention was that it illustrate how such accusations are independent of whether either has truth, and that all courses of action confound that in which all are implicated, yet to claim that one has acted in a particular manner is no requisite, and has no bearing upon whether one came to act, in the end, thusly.

I wish to make it clear, that none of those of the past I believe, with perhaps the exception of few whom subsist in obscurity, are reflective of the central form of my own choice of prose. If held in account, either claim would as consequence, in which I stand at fault, be obviated; were it truthful.

I'm impressed by those who actually read these posts enough to give valid responses.

Alright, got you. (By the way, my first, gut, reaction to your prose was that it sounded a little like legalese, rather than any particular author.) I didn't want to focus on the fake thing. I did want to make you feel just a little uncomfortable, but I may have gone about it the wrong way.

Would your preference then, rest upon the course through which I appropriate that of which we ourselves had spoken prior, in prospect, and ensure that it no longer reside in mere potentiality? That I strive to abide by lessening of that toward which I have hitherto been drawn, in its intensity, for the sake of all others, if not my own?

I lie bound by the disposition for argument, inasmuch as the veracity of that unto which I ascribe truth, be contested. As has been made evident, and for which only attestation on our behalves can be granted.

People enjoy freak shows. It makes them feel just about ‘normal’ enough.

It’s clear enough to me the person in question is an attention seeker and/or playing a part as part of a strange personal investigation. Either way, there is little genuine here to bother with.

The claim of Aspergers is dubious to say the least.

tldr: youre clearly smart, but everyone seems smarter when theyre themselves. thats what draws people in.

If one is as torpid and envisioned with the holding that such utterances are lacking an opaque, somewhat cataract quality - yet enabled to grace merely by the happenstance of spectra ‘bowing’; almost in open mockery I’d attach - and that the espoused terminological machinations are procured and presented forth on some pedestal of humility, then I have to quietly and succinctly disagree with the carriage held towards our scheming guest in whose appropriated condition of ‘communication’ seems of a purposefully stealthy and deceitful nature.

Loquacious unloading of thoughts is ‘smarter’. The art of chimera is an art though ... not something meant to to enable the audience, only to goad, un-foot and then slowly devour.

Clearly I’m smart like a pure azure panorama gilding the azimuth crown? Or is one merely begotten with a facetious will wrapped in the heavy garb of pretentious silks all akimbo below sullied sheets?

You gotta do you. I certainly didn't intend to try to pull you away from something personally meaningful, something which draws you toward it. I respect that you don't want to compromise your vision for the sake of others. Yes! (but also, although...)

I will say that I wouldn't characterize your approach 'a disposition to argument.' As an outsider, looking on, it seems more like an aesthetic thing : the joy of puzzling out out how to express the chaos of thought in bold magisterial sentences.

Regarding that last thing, that's something I feel like I get. I spend a lot of time with whirling thoughts that don't make much sense, and I feel relieved when I can fit them into another medium. But sometimes the cost of that is overvaluing expression, or wanting to identify more with what I say and how I say it than what I think and - most importantly - do. (this may be the thing I struggle with most.) The weirder & more difficult real life is, the more important stately prose is, at least for me. I can log on to the forums and pretend I'm master of everything. I stammer like an idiot talking to a girl at work, but then later, online, I say something that sounds (at least to me) dope af about Kant, with a little stylistic flourish.

But the thing is: what makes writing really good is when you let in the weird, uncomfortable stuff. Not allowing that stuff to dominate, or overrun, but to flow into whatever else you're doing. I don't want to suggest you stop playing with the complex, legal-ish prose you have. That seems to be part of your thing, and means a lot to you. I guess I'm just curious what would happen if you brought some other aspects of your life into communion with that part. I think it could be cool. You might enjoy the writings of Cormac McCarthy. He did a lot with weird legal-ish prose, but in a reworked way.

The vacuous verbiage of thine begotten foe wanders wistfully with warped whispers of the sanctity of sinful speech as conferred by virtue of the consequence of cowardly conners conceding in concomitance to the callousness of false consideration speaking in spiral tongue in a tone which lies in exceptional exhaustion of fleeting moments of intellectual prowess purporting to import endowment of ease in pursuance therewith all the while tearing at its seams.

Once more you misconstrue much of that which I have sought to convey, and the purity of my intention, by which it had been preceded, and brought to fruition.

The condition which ails me is no less true, nor evident in form, than the eagerness with which you strive to impose.

I cannot ‘misconstrue’ what I haven’t read. I read some of what you wrote on the first page. It was clear you lacked clarity in both writing ad reading comprehension.

If you have a point, that isn’t pretentious, make it explicit - that is neither a demand nor an order. I request with finality a SINGLE coherent sentence.

Metaphorically speaking, if you wish to change the rules of chess you’d first show us you know the rules of chess to begin with. At present you don’t appear understand basic communication - if that was clear I’d perhaps pander to your pantomine.

Note: My previous post took little to no effort.

Humorous writing style.
Best case scenario: grandiloquent.
Worst case scenario: word salad.
Bottom line: nobody who values their own time will bother to determine which (if not both) case(s) pertain(s), much less your intended meaning(s).
Upshot: similar to many (if not most) other posts on this forum.

It seems to me that you have made commitment solely of failure to offer recognition of the truth to which each has hitherto come to pertain; that of which one speaks, and holds in sight, as a matter in which the former be held by the subject as exemplified((truth)), stands independent of what is the case. The intensity with which one abides by a certain manner of sentiment, and expresses belief therewith, has no bearing on whether it is in alignment with the truth of either.

I hadn't sought to exercise pretension((not deliberately)), by means of any conveyance as granted on my own behalf, nor at all, prior. Yet I concede to have grown ever more wary of that of the prospect in which your course of intrusion, however unjust, subsists nonetheless. In the hope of attainment of resolve, in such respect, take heed of the following.

If that were clear*
And*
To understand*
(If it were the case as you have professed, that I am without even the faintest sense of understanding in that regard, I wouldn't have shown an aptitude for determination of fault amongst the same; as I have done, since.)

It is clear that you harbor the inclination to undermine me, yet remain blind to your own plight.

I request with finality a SINGLE coherent sentence. — I like sushi

I implore you with the utmost sincerity in tone, to fuck off.

"Note: My previous post took little to no effort." Nor had my own as the delay in its inception can be accounted for by means of a corresponding devotion of mine in effort, toward separate tasks all of which were conducted in concurrence with the previous.

Let e guide you by the hand and show you how to write:

It seems to me that you have made commitment solely of failure to offer recognition of the truth to which each has hitherto come to pertain; that of which one speaks, and holds in sight, as a matter in which the former be held by the subject as exemplified((truth)), stands independent of what is the case. The intensity with which one abides by a certain manner of sentiment, and expresses belief therewith, has no bearing on whether it is in alignment with the truth of either.

“You think I am being disingenuous”

Yes, I do. That or you’re not even trying to be clear - lazy.

I hadn't sought to exercise pretension((not deliberately)), by means of any conveyance as granted on my own behalf, nor at all, prior. Yet I concede to have grown ever more wary of that of the prospect in which your course of intrusion, however unjust, subsists nonetheless. In the hope of attainment of resolve, in such respect, take heed of the following.

“I admitted I write in an obscure manner so this justifies me continuing to do so (with little to no effort on my part and instead play the victim rather than actually try to communication something in a clear manner.)”

Sorry, I’m being disingenuous now because I added the part in parenthesis.

If that were clear*
And*
To understand*
(If it were the case as you have professed, that I am without even the faintest sense of understanding in that regard, I wouldn't have shown an aptitude for determination of fault amongst the same; as I have done, since.)

Admitting you cannot communicate clearly is not equivalent to being able to communicate clearly. I suggest editing after writing - meaning REDUCE the number of words. Use Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’ as a guide (it’s quite superb!)

I implore you with the utmost sincerity in tone, to fuck off.

I will when the time seems most fitting for both of us. That depends entirely on your response.

As a critique of the OP you don’t seem to have addressed the distinction set out by Kant regarding ‘noumenon’ in the positive AND negative sense of usage. I’d also say even if you could produce something more concise it would require copious footnotes to address the dynamic between the so-called ‘epistemic’ approach and the ‘ontological’ approach as they inevitably bleed into each other. Someone with your lacking capacity for precise speech - at least at the moment - means this is akin to three year old competing in the olympics 100m sprint. I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense at ALL as clearly there is potential (assuming you’re not too long in the tooth? I’m guessing you’re in your early late teens).

You think I am being disingenuous — I like sushi

That much stands evident in my eye's.

Admitting you cannot communicate clearly is not equivalent to being able to communicate clearly. I suggest editing after writing - meaning REDUCE the number of words. Use Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’ as a guide (it’s quite superb!) — I like sushi

While I acknowledge that to be truthful, it is the case necessarily that one must grant admittance of a particular deficit, if its resolve is to be attained, in time((if at all)). I have read that work more than once((twice)) thus far, and in full. Owing to which I see no reason which would vindicate further devotion toward its study; as I believe that course insofar as it be acted upon, to confer no betterment((I have already apprehended much of its substance, and content)).

(We each regard that sentiment as a matter of consensus; I have no eagerness, nor the inclination, to contest it. The work is itself quite superb, truly.)

It is of my understanding that there is no such distinction amongst the notion of noumena. The contrast rests upon that of the noumenal world, and its comparison as drawn between that of the whole of all phenomena. Whereof the former is antithetical((negative)) to that of the latter((positive)); rather than that for which the contrast resides within each, individually. Though, I wish to offer acknowledgement of the prospect of my own fault; as akin to all others I remain vulnerable to its commitment, whether that be in thought, if not otherwise.

Seventeen years of age, at present.

As have I adoration for the distinctiveness of your own form of expression, and am appreciative of the time which you came to devote, for my own sake throughout the course of our exchange. Moreover, my intent hadn't been to cast a tone of disparagement unto you for having sought to intercede; as I have held as preference therewith, little besides. I have seldom felt impelled to speak with others, and find those of the forms with which such engagements manifest, more often than not, to be abhorrent. I imagine few whom have taken solace, here, to have much aptitude in that respect either((the 'stammer'; 'talking like an idiot in certain situations')). I confess that I stand afflicted particularly by the former ailment, which abates only insofar as I transition toward a contorted state of mind wherein disinhibition pervades((brief periods of hypomania facilitated by means of cyclothymic disorder)). Could one suppose rightfully that my dispositions while of that nature, serve to account for as to why I remain inclined to deliberate on any matter, to such depth((my 'philosophical musings', so to speak))?

We reflect upon one another, I infer, in a great many respects to a degree which is incomparable beyond itself((in disregard of all disturbances of the psyche, I suspect)).

Read it again. I’d highly recommend taking Orwell’s advice in your case and cutting out the use of words which we’ve collected from romance languages; so instead of ‘necessary’ use need, instead of ‘vindicate’ use ‘right’, and instead of ‘apprehend’ use ‘ken’/‘see’.

Also, I’d highly recommend dropping the mixed use of forms. Stick to base form.

So, as painfully as it may be, go back to Orwell and edit your posts accordingly. It may not work, but if you genuinely wish to be concise then you’re going to have to do something more than what you’re already doing.

Examples:

(1)It is of my understanding that there is no such distinction amongst the notion of noumena. (2)The contrast rests upon that of the noumenal world, and its comparison as drawn between that of the whole of all phenomena. (3)Whereof the former is antithetical((negative)) to that of the latter((positive)); rather than that for which the contrast resides within each, individually. (4)Though, I wish to acknowledge the prospect of my own fault; as akin to all others I remain vulnerable to its commitment, whether that be in thought, if not otherwise.

1- “There are two distinction called ‘positive’ and ‘negative’?” - Yes, although it is probably too tricky a topic for you given how much you struggle with word comprehension and usage. I cannot stop you looking it up though.

2- “What is not the same is the grounding” - I would be careful to talk of ‘whole phenomenon’.

3- {I get the gist of what you say here, at best} That is actually the opposite of what Kant sets out. The noumenon in the positive sense is beyond ken - in more simplistic terms we cannot know what is not there. Whereas in the negative sense of noumenon we’re looking at the understanding of NOT knowing what we don’t know. It’s a seemingly contrary point most people struggle with. Really it is, like a lot of Kant’s work, extremely pedantic order to cut out razor sharp distinctions between the terms he uses - being someone inclined to avoid analogy as much as possible.

4- Use of ‘prospect’ is obscure. Another term would suit much better! (Drop the words of Latin/French origin). Anyway, this is a useless statement ... I don’t care really. If you want to keep on saying how difficult it is you won’t get sympathy from me - not my fault and not yours, get on with it rather than explain, repeatedly, why you cannot explain.

As another example of a sentence that could be edited further with dedication:

(then) While I acknowledge that to be truthful, it is the case necessarily that one must offer admittance of a particular deficit, if its resolve is to be attained, in time((if at all)).

Structuring thoughts and presenting them in a manner that is easy to grasp is certainly something you’re struggling with. Use short simple sentences NOT complex ones! As Orwell says in one of his first few rules “If I can remove a word remove it” and/or “can I say the same thing with less words” (forgive me I’m paraphrasing!)

The above sentence is out of order AND incomplete. Conditional sentences require a ‘then’ (not that it has to be explicit!)

“if its resolve is to be attained, in time ((if at all)).” = to find a solution, to fix the problem, or to improve (pick one of those three)

The rest could be spilt into simple sentences thus:

“I know its problem. I need to deal with the problem. I want to improve.”

Chopping up your complex sentences may seem to be dumbing down what you’re saying, but if you cannot teach yourself to do this quickly you’ll fall into worse habits. If you feel the need to write ONLY complex sentences then turn to poetry and use it as a means of self expression. For philosophical discourse it will slow your progress imo.

Trust me, we ALL burn within and feel that our words are a poor expression of what we mean. Sometimes dialing back on the amount of information we wish to express actually allows is to communicate far more than we ever thought possible - less is more :)

Anyway, GL

Be patient and edit more and more until you start to edit in your head rather than on the page.

I intend to take heed of that which you have come to endorse, for its own sake, and mine.

Despite the sense of confliction which had grown ever more pervasive amongst ourselves, I remain in appreciation of the depth of your responses and see now that the nature of your intention wasn't of malice, which was how it seemed to be in my eye's, before.

My hope is to remedy that deficit in understanding of mine; as I stand wholly intolerant of failure to garner true apprehension, in all its forms.

If it weren't this time((3:36 AM)), I would earnestly strive to address what you sought espress, prior, in full. Though I have yet to rest, and am quite fatigued on account of that.

I would wish to speak with you in the coming future, in different circumstances, however. As what preceded our exchange, its catalyst, I regard as much less than ideal.

Rest well, man.

Please permit me to backtrack:

My position at present is one for consideration of the boundaries which serve to constrain yet inhere within the breadth of all understanding — Vessuvius

.......all manner of understanding is bound (...), in contrast with that of an array of certain conceptions (...) on which it is predicated in full, which needn't themselves be grounded in the experiential as each must be held distinctly, a priori, independent of whether either be conceived, beforehand((and are thus in a discrete sense, boundless;transcendent(al?). — Vessuvius

The “array of certain conceptions” which “serve to constrain” the understanding within its logical bounds, are the categories, which are transcendental in their derivation, but not in their employment. The categories themselves are discrete but not boundless, there are but twelve after all, even if the objects which may be assigned to them, are. Metaphysicians from Aristotle onward grant the theoretical necessity and logical veracity of the categories, as sufficient means for the possibility of human empirical knowledge.
—————————

The sum of our every faculty constituted thereof can yield only series' of representations which are to be vindicated through the acuity with which the appearance of each stands to reflect upon that to which it would pertain........ — Vessuvius

A.K.A., experience(?);

.........

Yet, herein rests an intrinsic fault if one is to have hope to speak of the world as it is, truly, which is itself to lie in vain, inasmuch as one be bound by the requisite for such faculties of mind to discern either. — Vessuvius

Yes, because experience is never complete and therefore induction, both given by the faculties of the mind, is itself entirely insufficient for determinations of “the world as it is, truly”.

The alternative is to theorize that our representations actually do conform to the world as it truly is, re: direct realism, and such and sundry external world explanatory speculations.
————————-

Ever onward.

The modalities with which reason be conveyed, are neither more nor less tangible in form, and procedure, than the domain of mathematical thought — Vessuvius

Not sure what to do with this. Mathematical thought is reason exemplified, that is to say, mathematical thought does not exist without reason. Indeed no thought whatsoever exists without reason. Reason and thought are the same thing. It follows that reason said to be neither more nor less tangible in form and procedure than mathematical thought, is analytically true, but nonetheless entirely redundant.

If by modality is meant method of expression, or mode of presence, re: existence, then I suppose it could be said the conveyance of reason has no more or less tangibility than mathematical thought, for each is every bit as intangible in its strictest sense as the other. One glaring difficulty herein would be the fact that mathematical thought, while predicated on a priori conceptions, depends necessarily on experience for its proof, whereas pure reason, even by definitions alone regardless of its implicit content, cannot abide any empirical proof at all.
————————

Hence the prohibition imposed, for the sake of knowledge.......((is of tenuous ground as it imposes synthetic restrictions on reason, rather than permitting it to remain in its natural state, and inquiry, as to that same form by means of itself)).

Perhaps, if it were not for the availability of knowledge, the denial or contradiction of which leads to absurdities. All there needs be is an instance or series of instances of apodictic certainty, within the confines of the human cognitive system, for which the basis of constructive criticism of reason itself can stand on good ground. Permitting reason to subsist in its natural state invites imagination to overpower experience and while there is little to prevent any rational subject from relying on one or the other, he absolutely cannot do both simultaneously with respect to the same cognition. Besides, imagination carried too far inexorably becomes the irrational.
————————-

Preservation of constancy in understanding, and reason by consequence, can be attained, without conceding to that of the intention upon which you have hitherto come to act; — Vessuvius

You are invited to inform me as to how this is to be accomplished, bearing in mind constancy in understanding is the norm for Everydayman, if by no other means than the innocuous methodology of mere habit, or miserly convention, re: Hume, and only comes to the fore in metaphysical inquiries.

Oh. Almost forgot: reason is not the consequence of understanding; it is understanding that is the consequence of reason. Obviously.....we always reason toward our understanding, which is nothing but the exercise of that faculty, with possible judgement always its immediate consequence, and cognition its termination.

Point/counterpoint; dialectics. Not proof of nor hinting toward logical error or lackadaisical rationality. Grain of salt. Etc, etc, etc.

Philosophical musings.

All of that for which one can strive for apprehension therewith; the sum of every form and each instance in which all are brought to fruition, of which the world is itself constituted, is bound by the condition wherein there is present a subject through whom is yielded its sight yet neither are to subsist in a wholesome state if it be the case that either be absent whilst the other remains. — Vessuvius

Yes, but inauthenticity of the difference between sexual identity and class, on the the use of cultural narrative to challenge the status quo of the observer is social comment, but only if distinct from language; otherwise, we can assume that culture is capable of intentionality to denote the fatal
flaw, and therefore the failure, of predeconstructivist class of socialism to analyse and read society of the ‘the textual paradigm of discourse’ to denote not, in fact, dematerialism, but postdematerialism of an abundance of constructions concerning a neostructuralist totality that may be revealed in an analysis of cultural narrative that holds between the task of the poet that is deconstruction.

:joke:

Because pummeling deceased equines is eventually quite messy...........

You mentioned noumena a couple times. What do you think they are, and from that, what do they do for you?

And don’t you DARE send me to wiki or SEP. Or IEP, or any of those other second-hand repositories. Your own thoughts, or references from a real honest-to-gawd book!!!!

or you could be less wordy.

Firstly, I wish to offer expression of remorse for the vastness in delay by which my present response had hitherto been preceded. I have felt drawn by the prospect of devotion toward matters which remain in isolation, and are thus separate, from that of the course in which I strive to deliberate.

The “array of certain conceptions” which “serve to constrain” the understanding within its logical bounds, are the categories, which are transcendental in their derivation, but not in their employment. The categories themselves are discrete but not boundless, there are but twelve after all, even if the objects which may be assigned to them, are. Metaphysicians from Aristotle onward grant the theoretical necessity and logical veracity of the categories, as sufficient means for the possibility of human empirical knowledge. — Mww

It has grown evidentiary in my own eye's that one needn't grant admittance, nor means for entailment of further consideration, inasmuch as that of which we have spoken, lies entrenched in the truth of that to which each shall pertain. One can make inference that such sentiment, if it be held in sight, and accord with one's passage of judgement, in a manner such that it bear semblance to the former in that with which each manifests, cannot in any truthful sense be regarded as of fault, nor less subject to disputation in the veracity of all therewith. One ought to persist in silence; to abide by an act of heartfelt acknowledgment of all forms thereof, as necessities of the constitution of the world in its totality.

My disposition for argument, lies contingent upon whether there remain means through which the former can be vindicated, and if there be reason to act upon either((I regard the prior, as that through which there be exemplified mere consensus amongst ourselves and as consequence, am bound only by the disinclination to contest its truth.

Yes, because experience is never complete and therefore induction, both given by the faculties of the mind, is itself entirely insufficient for determinations of “the world as it is, truly”.

The alternative is to theorize that our representations actually do conform to the world as it truly is, re: direct realism, and such and sundry external world explanatory speculations. — Mww

Once more that for the sake of which we ourselves had sought to offer conveyance, stands in form, reflective amongst each, as the resultant of our own expenditures, on behalf of one another; seldom have I come to garner sight of any manner of dissimilarity arising therefrom. Nor have I found reason to ensure furtherance in the depth with which we have made discernment of the fault which inheres within such doctrines by virtue of the nature of that upon which all are predicated((in disregard of the truth of the condition of that for which we and all else resides, in appearance; the world as it seems through the lens of the subject, not as it is, truly; how the latter serves as an unassailable boundary to understanding inasmuch as all therein can be attained in potentiality)).

Perhaps, if it were not for the availability of knowledge, the denial or contradiction of which leads to absurdities. All there needs be is an instance or series of instances of apodictic certainty, within the confines of the human cognitive system, for which the basis of constructive criticism of reason itself can stand on good ground. Permitting reason to subsist in its natural state invites imagination to overpower experience and while there is little to prevent any rational subject from relying on one or the other, he absolutely cannot do both simultaneously with respect to the same cognition. Besides, imagination carried too far inexorably becomes the irrational. — Mww

One need only exercise forethought throughout the whole of one's abidance toward that within which the modality of reason pervades, to confer fulfillment unto that of the requisite for constancy in form of thought, its every aspect, and that through which each be expressed. Reason must persist in its natural state, untarnished, wherein no enactment of synthetic restrictions as cast unto itself be granted for truth to be apprehended in its grandest breadth; the latter of which were it to have countenance, wouldn't entail preclusion by virtue of mere necessity of that which one hoped to preserve, as bore in thought((constancy)). None can assure that there be inception of discrepancies in the forms with which each manifests in its appearance, were the case otherwise((if one sought to permit the state for which reason has much proclivity, to remain, and endure such in course unabated, the advent of contradiction in prospect, is no matter of assurance. To constrain the forces of judgement as confined to that of the instance within which it is to appear, rather than the whole of reason, would allow for achievement of the same, as consequence.))

For detraction from the extent of either inconstancy in the sense of that which is prospective, if it be yielded, one must restrict the boundaries of reason in broadness, only insofar as each correspond to a certain instance of appropriation therewith, in which its usage be warranted, and acted upon through the subject((if it be accounted for, that which has come to precede, since, would obviate the aforementioned requisite for preservation of that attribute((constancy)) in such form((thought)).

Not sure what to do with this. Mathematical thought is reason exemplified, that is to say, mathematical thought does not exist without reason. Indeed no thought whatsoever exists without reason. Reason and thought are the same thing. It follows that reason said to be neither more nor less tangible in form and procedure than mathematical thought, is analytically true, but nonetheless entirely redundant. If by modality is meant method of expression, or mode of presence, re: existence, then I suppose it could be said the conveyance of reason has no more or less tangibility than mathematical thought, for each is every bit as intangible in its strictest sense as the other. One glaring difficulty herein would be the fact that mathematical thought, while predicated on a priori conceptions, depends necessarily on experience for its proof, whereas pure reason, even by definitions alone regardless of its implicit content, cannot abide any empirical proof at all. — Mww

The latter of which bore reflection upon that which I had sought to convey, which would thus hinder in the same sense development of such redundancy in form. One could as is the basis for my own suspicion assert that reason stands as the catalyst for one's understanding; remaining predicated in judgement, and inherent within the same, yet which can subsist despite, as neither stands wholly indistinct from the other, whether in constitution, if not as a matter of appearance in the eye's of the subject.

Oh. Almost forgot: reason is not the consequence of understanding; it is understanding that is the consequence of reason. Obviously.....we always reason toward our understanding, which is nothing but the exercise of that faculty, with possible judgement always its immediate consequence, and cognition its termination.

Point/counterpoint; dialectics. Not proof of nor hinting toward logical error or lackadaisical rationality. Grain of salt. Etc, etc, etc.

Philosophical musings. — Mww

Seldom have I felt inclined to deviate from that course.

((I have grown ever more indifferent toward the prospect in which we ourselves strive to maintain the correspondence upon which we have hitherto come to act; though by consequence of my transition toward a state of mind in which no other sentiment, is diffuse throughout, as made manifest by means of cyclothymic disorder. I wish to ensure that it be recognised, that neither hardship is attributive to that of which commitment had been made on your part, throughout our exchange. None can hold its sight in anticipation with certitude, nor ought one to ascribe fault unto oneself for the advent of either.))

I have begun to offer devotion toward the study of certain notions, throughout many works which serve to illustrate the pertinence of each, and the myriad aspects which reside therein. My principal hope is that my state of apathy, the ever greater lessening in eagerness with which I deliberate, and speak with those whom endeavor toward the same, abate in time and entail thusly, further engagement amongst ourselves for its own sake.


We shall see what is to come of it, I suppose.

May your studies abate your apathy.

Peace.