We all hear voices and sometimes it becomes difficult to attach to one over another which one is produced by ME deliberately pushing the thought forward. I do believe that, on top of hearing the voices of what others have thought in an esprit de l'escalier (posterior to the event of encountering them), we also hear our own voice in two streams. One of our self-actualized self the other of you in your current temporal dimension with your current stock. This is conjecture or confabulation, if you are also heady, but evoking these entities seems to explain alot about the intangibility of experience, the mental life. Like the seed contains an imprint of the plant it is to be within itself, a being also contains its final state. We hear from this 'voice' all day, it IS you. There are no identical reduplications of this being from an external standpoint. But you are not it yet, you must become acquainted with it and step out in direction towards it. We have encountered those people who speak straight to you, who beyond believing to know you in some high self-regard, actually become you (as you see yourself, they seem to have a grasp of the twice-removedness of consciousness and hack into it with self-relinquishment and delighting effect). They have recompiled themselves, much like placing two acetate sheets one atop the other for a complete image. The being of this self-actualized voice has no bearing on the linear progression of time, though likely it has seen all YOUR behavior before: 'sometimes I see right through myself'. Upon realizing this dichotomy, ME, the only entity, who I have a direct handling of rebels. 'I just made you up, to hurt myself' can equate in a state of distress to 'I cannot be you, my complete experience as I experience it, in the forum', your presence hurts me, I am abysmal in comparison. Another re-prompt of one aspect of present day cognitive dissonance. The problem arises, if you were to ask me, from pragmatic, everyday linguistic practices which have it that the I becomes rendered an object 'me' for practicality sake in conversation. In our own free time none of us can 'stop picking at that scab' of selfhood. Nice places to eat are far and few between, so we chew at our edges. Ever seen a nailbitter really go at it, and rather that become repulsed, explored the prompt 'what has taken hold of him'? Ah people on the metro. In any event, it seems that we are alone as we always were, with company. This language which spawns the problem is called sometimes 'the language of things'. It would see the self as a thing. Perhaps not substantive, but fixed, with parameters and spacio-temporal dimensions. There are other modes of speaking. Of course one must be discrete and unassuming in their practice, otherwise in spite of all intents and purposes one may come off as an utter babbling goon. I covers a wide schematization of entities, likely, all of which belong to that I without being products of the psyche as it is currently. This is an ontology. To any curious to read an astounding examination of the phenomenal self (I in its totality as it appears to me, cap) allow me to draw out Sartre's essay The Look for your pleasure.
This is not the pretentiously written fluff piece I was expecting to read, but instead a concise and intellectual presentation of the intrinsically metaphysical elements of this song. I admire and envy your command of language.
This is not the pretentiously written fluff piece I was expecting to read, but instead a concise and intellectual presentation of the intrinsically metaphysical elements of this song. I admire and envy your command of language.
We all hear voices and sometimes it becomes difficult to attach to one over another which one is produced by ME deliberately pushing the thought forward. I do believe that, on top of hearing the voices of what others have thought in an esprit de l'escalier (posterior to the event of encountering them), we also hear our own voice in two streams. One of our self-actualized self the other of you in your current temporal dimension with your current stock. This is conjecture or confabulation, if you are also heady, but evoking these entities seems to explain alot about the intangibility of experience, the mental life. Like the seed contains an imprint of the plant it is to be within itself, a being also contains its final state. We hear from this 'voice' all day, it IS you. There are no identical reduplications of this being from an external standpoint. But you are not it yet, you must become acquainted with it and step out in direction towards it. We have encountered those people who speak straight to you, who beyond believing to know you in some high self-regard, actually become you (as you see yourself, they seem to have a grasp of the twice-removedness of consciousness and hack into it with self-relinquishment and delighting effect). They have recompiled themselves, much like placing two acetate sheets one atop the other for a complete image. The being of this self-actualized voice has no bearing on the linear progression of time, though likely it has seen all YOUR behavior before: 'sometimes I see right through myself'. Upon realizing this dichotomy, ME, the only entity, who I have a direct handling of rebels. 'I just made you up, to hurt myself' can equate in a state of distress to 'I cannot be you, my complete experience as I experience it, in the forum', your presence hurts me, I am abysmal in comparison. Another re-prompt of one aspect of present day cognitive dissonance. The problem arises, if you were to ask me, from pragmatic, everyday linguistic practices which have it that the I becomes rendered an object 'me' for practicality sake in conversation. In our own free time none of us can 'stop picking at that scab' of selfhood. Nice places to eat are far and few between, so we chew at our edges. Ever seen a nailbitter really go at it, and rather that become repulsed, explored the prompt 'what has taken hold of him'? Ah people on the metro. In any event, it seems that we are alone as we always were, with company. This language which spawns the problem is called sometimes 'the language of things'. It would see the self as a thing. Perhaps not substantive, but fixed, with parameters and spacio-temporal dimensions. There are other modes of speaking. Of course one must be discrete and unassuming in their practice, otherwise in spite of all intents and purposes one may come off as an utter babbling goon. I covers a wide schematization of entities, likely, all of which belong to that I without being products of the psyche as it is currently. This is an ontology. To any curious to read an astounding examination of the phenomenal self (I in its totality as it appears to me, cap) allow me to draw out Sartre's essay The Look for your pleasure.
This is not the pretentiously written fluff piece I was expecting to read, but instead a concise and intellectual presentation of the intrinsically metaphysical elements of this song. I admire and envy your command of language.
This is not the pretentiously written fluff piece I was expecting to read, but instead a concise and intellectual presentation of the intrinsically metaphysical elements of this song. I admire and envy your command of language.