. . . we cannot have anything. ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Now, by the very nature of our conversing, even if we seem to agree, we disagree on the deceptive grounds of language. Not just by the particular language used, but by the assumption that language is needed for truth. In other words, we agree to keep the deception going, because we disagree on an absolute experience, without saying so much directly. Staying connected while moving a greater distance away still, this is our practice. It also fits in nicely with the deceptive process of aquiring just about anything, appearing worthy of something earned, the way desire for value over something possessed motivates itself through a reinforced purpose. The same purpose of having a base desire from the start, it cycles ahead.
Are you what you are, without doing what you are, by way of demonstration to another being, who also already is?
It happens to be justified, this deceptive act of wanting, in that it eats itself. And, therefore, it justifies eating in general. By definition, is justifies being an eater, a consumer, a wanter, one thing that desires ownership of another thing, first, by distinction, then, in relation to such pronounced variables as size, color, number, shape, sound, ect. In order to recognize the bond of familarity, one has come to first highlight the differences. An apprehension of the foriegn-ness of a specific detail has subsumed an apprehension of foriegn-ness on the whole, which, if the whole were to stand above subordination, it would quickly fall into something all-to-common to be proved by evidence.
The bond that follows is a hollow victory. We dont need to win, while we are constantly winning amongst temporal change. We dont need to win when we have always won, especially since we win always, no matter what. We only need to win, to get the upperhand in the most superior fashion, once we conceive the ulitmate idea of losing. If anything, loss is just a new challenge that pretends to relieve us from a eternally long standing postion of total power over nothing.
To be the truth, only the truth, is different from having any apsect of truth. I admit right now, that assessement is all I have.
I suppose there is not just a degree on a spectrum that will confirm this, but that many layers of many spectrums contain images copied infinitely. Varying, but still in accordance. Somehow is a summary, otherwise it is exact. The truth seems to be a summarizer of all, otherwise it is deception about the very noble quest for the type of truth that will always remain ellusive.
If someone were to fully believe that their perception is reality, I would not seek to change this. I agree on some level, except that I believe that “what we dont know is what matters most” Am I saying that there is something to be known beyond what can be percieved?
No, not really.
That we cant know is what matters most, should be a more apt expression. That we think we know certain things is the deception that we never fully digest, but chew on into the always approaching future.
Truth for me is anything I take for granted, so much so, I dont have it on my mind. My chair supporting me was truth, until I examined the difference between contemplating it, after just sitting in it, not contemplating it. Change itself betrays the words we seem to need for a constant check of realness.
However, even though my chair has just given me doubts, I can pretty well determine there are other things I’m taking for granted as I continue to sit. They are true. And for the sake of OUR dialogue, I will say, they are true enough. True enough to make something to have.