Woke up drugged took something very strong and it really put me out.
For me, not to Fix (not a verbal slip) ha ha, it is contraindicative not to place focus, away from personality, as a matter of fact, in that I really place myself in a triple hierarchy of positions.
Ill try to explain my predicament in commenting on how this goes down.
Thinking about Biggie’s version, and similarly I reach out to be unable to view the balance, the ideal that a zero sum kind of architecture implies.
This is a profundity for me, that forthwith has important implications.
The conflicting two part conflict between the a-priori and the a-posteriori forms of acquisition of knowledge, -with that in mind - and the type of solution to the negative aspect of the depleting image of the negative form of an ideologically brought on idealism.
Plato, Socrates and Meno were mere characters in a tapestry of unfolding dramatic cognitive and perceptual awareness, that now, in an era of Warhol, of post modern signatures , reflect, all around in a sort of cignitive miasma -
The centering ‘urge’ which condenses and/or expands, has developed religious undertones, that have moral, and psychological postmodern implications, such that give rise to the parallel indications o.between Leonardo and Warhol.
The aesthetic is at once, implicative of both: the inner’core, and and the outer periphery.
Fixed, the big picture represents an objective evolving connexion of the minor with the major premises. The minor premise come the foreground personality of Socrates within a dual aspect of understanding within the very earliest firm of logical consistency. The major being premise consists with the judgement of Socrates with that of the posterior.
The posterior, or the coming of an understanding, tries to differentiate both, to achieve a systematic retroactive synthesis.
Why did this happen? Why did such a foresight, of an a priori synthetic correspondence become objectively necessary, beginning in with the advent of popular understanding of the age of reason, that impressed upon greater numbers who felt it necessary.
The holdouts diminished significantly , and even now. Those who still are far from overcoming the methods by which su h prejudice should have by now popularly been overcome, present an ironic debate:
Should factual understanding between the focus and the outline been understood by now, and what reason , if any can be given for such sustained epoche that had been existentially presented generations ago?
Plato’s Meno presents the argument thousands of years ago, and the final answer may never be given satisfactorily, because the two forms of the argument , were really sourced out of single ideas.
What wisdom is nowedays, is understood as a multi derived series of questions, bound up with various shades of meaning, that try to set balances which are workable within various organisational structures.
Some understanding of relevant meaning and value derive from more or less substantial families of interpretation, and an understanding configured to try to account for such , may show comparative validity to the cosmical proportions of actual physically demonstrable relativity, that may show the inception of familial meaning of expressions.
That the early expressions appear overtly idealistic, can not at that time, show the possibility of realizing the weakness of ideal structures. That the negative aspects during those early days, can only appear after the span between the Birth of Tragedy and the Twilight of The Gods, give some indication of the stunning shortening of the spatial temporal curvature.
That such curvature that can be understood as that limited scope that The Ring could manifest as a subsisting ideal: suggests the proposition, that questions not only the meaning and validity of a functional necessity , but also, an inducement into the periphery argument, as to why such correspondence should occur and why.