The mere use of the word 'they-, who , implies those, who can not understand Your predicament. This feels as. something important here, that we might have overlooked , and may help to clarify .
The other day I noted am abstraction, and it resembles the multitude of ‘others’ who inhabit, will inhabit, and did inhabit this universe.
Then thought about all the different worlds who are concurrently residing , against a backdrop of consciousness, and finally , about one solitary man, such that is trying to fathom a singular idea.
And then somehow pulled myself out of this meta meditation. since it leads to the absurd contradiction that Descartes must have felt himself to be, thinking and existing, a move of desperation , which can lead only to an evil genius, creating today’s simulated world.
Simulation is on its way big time, silently , like a thief in the night coming through the back door, we completely taken by surprise.
That the whole of what we seem I’m/sub conscious consists of the formal elements we talked about earlier, is but the intellectual contraption which fascinates us, and gaining substance, as our future is slowly unflowong as the manifestation of our past.
This simulation is a necessary substantial requirement that nature fills in to compensate those of us, who do not have an nominal idea of our, - Your, mine, and some others who do.
We are fragmented individually , because we can not communicate our Being with the existence of others.
But this may be a misnomer, because we do have a very unique language here, that of philosophical discourse, and we are able to use this language, and this language , as rarefied as it is, is becoming more and more, toward subliminal understanding, creates a divide with those vastly more numerous who so not care to understand, they experience the world in a way that doesent show any interest or concern with it, they simply exist as acting out behaviorally.
I believe I get a lot of brotherhood in the company of the former, regardless of the present state of our mind, and in my mind, and theirs, thought through consciousness unifies temporal differences and connects former and informal elements.
Their difference caused the differentially to evolve and make conscious and objective this language , so that we can communicate in this different language.
By the way we think about our fragmentation, we are actually using the language of conscious participation in filling the somethingness with nothing while using that nothing to fill something tremendous. The formal informal and the informal formal integrate the vast abyss to become our springboard , from which we can leap into faith.
It must work, because it has worked , and even if it has lost credibility for moat people, some holdouts appreciate this as nature’s absolute guarantee for the continuum ad infinity that life, particularly human life consists of.
This is a striking example of how the dilemma is formulated:-------------------
always come back to that gap between “I” and “all there is”. ------------------------------------
The gap in other words is a cut off part, a disassociated conscious manifestation that results in the cross between two logical systems. Deduction/reduction and induction.
The assumption of a unity and wholeness underlies all thinking, for we can cut out Platonisn as a modus operans, try not to think in a manner of modeling, hence becoming a sub conscious part of our psyche, but the sub conscious works even when we are not aware of it.
The inductive method works backward , it particularises factual material using the most recently acquired knowledge, and the further it descends in memory, the less substantially material is codified in terms of bounded signification, the gaps increasing more as we get to the least substantial.
The language if the ancients signified thoughts much more literally, the doubtful ideas negated logic into flat denial, contradicting everything not belonging in the primary idea, that absolutely including it’s self and excluding everything else.
So for instance, a 'table" was a table, and not an early symbol to manifest the top surface of a written statement, or a list of ‘tabled’ signs.
Now thinking backward, we assume what the ancients may have included in these and other type of ideas, and lets see how this went down.
I don’t know if this study into Ancient Greek etymology is something to concern with within the context of this forum, and although I am far from being a classical scholar, but it is interesting to note that Nietzsche was primarily concerned and involved in this.
And coincidentally, his sense of nothingness is directly involved with the nothingness in nihilization.
What goes down in years of study of etymology, leads us philosophetdcto assume the many many connections necessary to differentiate multitude of meanings, into the capitulated idea of the relevance of nihilism into 20th century existentialism.
The modern existentialist made such assumptions, on bases of long and involved studies into the theory of meaning, most formidable of Greek and Roman derivatives.
While we can disclaim the formal/informal , various interpretations of the classics, they do firm a dependence of the modern on the classic. We may be able to consciously cut off the deivetive from the derived, but our minds work on lower conscious levels.