Statements of meaning and presentation alternate between pointing out particularities or remaining within a general, universal, scope of representation. The general concept of “working class” has, as its content, an overall symbol or signification which it refers to. The “members” of the working class is a generality, however, it is now referring to those within a particular group or class. When we say that ‘he’ falls within the scope of ‘working class,’ the presentation differs and a representation takes place where now the definition takes on an altered meaning; a sense from symbolic to generality to specific and, although the substance has not changed, the contents of it have. With each alteration the outer sense of the intention changes, while its inner sense remains as the subject presented but, within its contents, possesses the core of differing representations.
The economy of thought is an essential mode of consciousness, an intentional act in which the contents of intuition already exist. To perceive, at first, categorically, immediately, and synthetically forming an all-inclusive act of consciousness which combines intuition and knowledge, into a singular thought process. This perpetuate event is one in which a ‘knowing’ or a thought of knowing presents itself. The synthetically combined resultant is the “ideal imagery” which perpetuates itself indefinitely and has, for consciousness, the complete experience of reality in its defined perception.
If an object vanishes from existence, all of its contents or attributes, vanish along with it. One cannot be without the other. A house cannot exist without walls. A wall cannot exist unless it is holding up, holding back, or providing a type of purpose of a wall. An attribute, in itself, may exist independently, determined by its own attributes. All qualities of content are, a priori, efficient modes of individuated concepts which eventually must, by their own abstract nature, form into something. These particulars, however, are not the drawn to attentive contents. We do not look at a statue and generally think about the origin of its materials. We also cannot associate a certain object with a particular time and place, where each passing moment would change it from what it is. All things are unities of a multiplicity. They are changeless forms intended by particularities which, in themselves, contain their own attributes. What completes itself is a species generated by the abstract complexities of its being. It is so abstract that any attempt to put it into context unavoidably leads to a wider range of ideas and concepts that may, or may not, become entities of their own. Consciousness is always conscious of something but, generally speaking, is not necessarily conscious of the fabricating elements of what it perceives, only what-is-itself-for-itself.
To separate out an object and point towards its attributes as being in common with other objects, is to say that it has all or none of these properties at once. It only apparently does so through its appearance. As these objects present themselves they are not ideas channeled through inner perception, nor are they universal in that they contain universal properties. They are ‘presentations’ conceived as they are ‘apparently’; as they seem to us and not imagined. As all properties of an object (a tree, house, etc.) are inseparable from their common contents, of which these contents cannot exist without each other, they can still be separately explained and ‘sorted out.’ A horse can be a particular shade of color, but it is not a specific content that makes a horse a horse. Although the horse can exist without a certain color, that particular color cannot exist without the horse’s presentation of it. Specific properties, therefore, are exterior elements that attach themselves to particular objects and transcend the object towards a meaning-fulfillment which has, for the observer, a perception that is singular in its appearance and phenomenal in its nature. Species, in general, exists as species sharing qualities and characteristics, universal attributes and properties that result in intuitive percepts of inseparable similarities.
What fills content and what is content is dissimilar and subjective while also being empirical and self-fulfilling. We give descriptions and enunciate certain specific notions which are universal and general, but, concurrently are personal, as in the case of pointing to a dwelling wherein a family of shoemakers resides. One can say that the family exists to do the same tasks, to share tools and knowledge, while another can point out that the family just happens to share a vocation which places them together and sustains their cause. Different meanings conjure different attributes, yet eventually fall within a similar rubric which is identifiable through their immediate effects. A bridge crosses a stream to give safe passage yet exists to demarcate two separate banks of sand. What “is” and what is “meant” is identifiable through the identifier and is not solely limited to one particular definition. Different attributes relate to one specific cause, while a cause, or effect, may contain one specific attribute that, without it, could not exist nor even be imagined.
All individuality unites in meaning that has, as its possibility, an individual specificity which is endless. And, this unity is itself one of multiplicity where an object is specifically represented as opposed to its meaning or what it represents. We can point out an individual and say that he or she exists. And, further on, they exist as a statesman or teacher or laborer. Their possibility represents meaning. But, their meanings hold unlimited possibility. They are either this or that, or something altogether out of the realm of possibility, which is not specifically impossible but generally unattainable. The distinction between an ‘object’ and what an ‘object is’ is the difference between representation and meaning. Since all possibility is endless, it must, by its own nature, reach a point where it evolves into a specific meaning, or it would not be a possibility, nor even an impossibility. It couldn’t exist to begin with. And, this limit, this point of specific determination and representation, is the dividing line between thought-content and that which exists beyond the imagination since man’s cognitive powers are, in effect, limited by what could be rendered as a possibility or impossibility.
A concept can fulfill itself through the force of its meaning and need not be accompanied by an illustrative or descriptive character. It requires reason as its active-attribute and through a pre-existing supposition, which has as its foundation an a priori element, comes to an understanding which has relevance and direction conceived through its own awareness. It is true self-fulfillment and a knowing which brings “meaning” to itself and is a necessary judgement that guides thought, as an object is guided through a narrow cleavage before it emerges, concurrently, in a realm which holds its own singular negation. In other words, a concept is a self-truth if it can produce its own opposite and not leave open any question as to its descriptive character or, moreover, as to a judgement which could unveil a number of new judgements and particulars. Reason possesses two sides: One is truth. The other is non-truth. Concepts are the character of reason, whether their results hold positive or negative connotations with everything else..
Signs form from concepts and, once understood, need not contain imagery to show their character, their acts, or symbols of acts. They resonate through consciousness and are representative of reason. They lack necessity of experience, although they are, symbolically, the act of experience. They are symbolic in arithmetic, a simple game of chance, or an everyday unfolding of events which may or may not point toward a particular outcome. They are both a priori and empirical symbols in that they evolve from basic understanding and cling to an everydayness even though consciousness is not conscious of this. They are not necessarily objects of thought, but objects understood. Even stripped of intuition, the sign-experience is an active trait of the character of reason.
Through an expression different attributes come into play. One would be its utterance or the signaling made and the other is the meaning ‘expressed’ through a firm explanation. We use expressions through words and images which contain objects and objects-meaning. Once expressed, whether the object exists or not, it takes on a meaning and content, a form of knowledge attained through an understanding qua comprehending and, further on, produces and re-shapes itself through its own representation. The expression that “a tree is standing in the forest” produces the image of a simple object. With a more significant and meaningful expression, as in the “tree stands alone in the forest, surrounded by other trees. Its top is hidden in a mist that rolls down from the mountains,” it takes on multiple properties and becomes a living essence seen from itself by showing itself and, the further on that its qualities and attributes are ‘pointed out,’ the more significance it attains. It relates to the observer differently than before and makes its ‘mark’ in the content of its meaningful image. It becomes an object of content. And the closer the relationship with the object, the more it expands into an endless realm of expression.
The objects of intention don’t remain objects as such, as they exist in their peculiarity and character, but through their ‘meaning-intention’ are fulfilled in thought and addressed with circumspection once they become a point of interest. A forest of trees exists, is there in the world. One may focus on a single tree, leaving the others on the periphery and in the background of thought; a blurred presence which is not accountable. And, this tree, as a singular presentation, is the focus of the thought-content and, by its presence, goes from a broad presentation into a single interest; an object defined solely by the attention upon it, as it otherwise would be one of many lost in the ambivalent wave of simultaneity and color. It enters experience not only in imagining its existence, but physically differs from the observer through its own intention. The thought-content, once only imagined, becomes fulfilled by the object’s presence and forms a unity of the multiplicity of a singularity in that it becomes one in a world of many which is immediate before being mediated within a single consciousness.