Different modes of thought are contents that run from problematic and disjunctive, to assertive and apodictic. Through judgments they mediate sequentially and use truth as the basis of cognizant functionality. Even a falsehood is a truth as it relates to the judgment from which it emerged. Assertions are real or true and offer a positive or negative correlation to the subject in the way of its expression. One can say “the cloud overhead is filled with rain.” This assertion expresses a reality, or the truth, but can also be false in that the cloud is only vapor. When referring to an apodictic judgment, a necessity must be present as in “that flower needs water, or rain, to survive.” The contents of that judgment hold a necessary predicate on the direct survival of the object in question. These contents are necessarily true. The only problematic, or disjunctive, judgment countering the necessary content would be “without rain, or water, nothing would survive.” This is problematic in the sense that it holds forth a proposition that is true and, yet, is also a negative proposition in that it relies on a “lack of an object (rain, water)” to be positively true. All judgments are necessary for reason to emerge out of the complex arrangement of all that exists and does so through a systematic field of positive truths and negative truths supported by judgments which are, a priori, positive or negative in themselves.
There are two elements connected with an existing object. One is the a priori intuition which allows for its sensibility, the other the understanding of the sense itself. The former being the transcendental form of a particular sensation. The latter the empirical form of experiencing the object and its meaning. Now meaning itself can be a priori as representing a particular judgment which infers that all matter is preexisting and understood as within a mathematical proposition. Once a thought or object enters the experiential horizon it becomes temporized and, this attachment, governed by time, as all movement and change involves time, arises as universal and eternally inclusive in that the intention is woven into the fabric of existence. Once established in its relation to all that exists, experience fulfills itself in the way of which its first constructs arose. In other words, whatever is to follow from an event, or even a cognition, is the interplay of dialectical elements that are always reinventing themselves and coming about. What is first is always last, and whatever follows is first in that it begins anew a force of predicates searching for subjects, as a stream set free of the sea from which it has voyaged.
All objects sensed, or forms in space perceived as particular objects with particular qualities, are actually representations to the perceiver and not actually things in themselves. Different qualities attached to objects: taste, smell color, etc. are different to every subject. What tastes sweet to one may not taste as sweet to another. A particular shade of red may elicit different perspectives among different men. Nothing is truly as it seems, nor can it be explicitly known. It is a mere “representation” and retains an understanding, but is a sensed object which has space as its true property and nothing else. All things that exist belong to a subjective mode which is, in itself, open to all possibilities. It is an external presence given to us through our senses, formed by a transcendent conception and determined by our perceptions. The truth, or sense of it, lies with the perceiver and not with the thing itself. As a representation to our senses, we take an object as it shows itself, but never know what it is in itself.
We are all condemned to our perceptions; what we see, feel, hear, think, etc. Our experiences are perceptions within their own horizon-with-background. It is the means by which the dialectical interplay between being and world holds together and creates situations engineered by the perceiver. Subject and object cancel each other out and the result is a perceptual balance that undertakes the present and forms a “behind-the-world” sense of all objects that are both external and knowable. Objects which follow from themselves as they present themselves as extended and divisible substances; substances in the world that offer an experience to the perceiver. Without these objects the world would have no content and consciousness would be a consciousness of not being conscious of anything. Perception is experience of “being within finitude.” It is also experience of knowing that which cannot be known by any other but the knower himself. Our perceptions are all we know. Outside of it nothing exists. Not even ourselves.
Experience is a convergence of time, space, and being, centered in a particular concern and sketched within an event horizon with background. It is a backdrop of everyday life involving all possibilities that could occur within the boundaries of a finite world. Man’s concerns are the body in which his history lives and breathes, and it is through this “looking back” that defines his life. He could never escape his experiences. They are his shackles and his blueprint going forward; his designation and his status. His inquiries into the past evoke images that creep into the present and penetrate his future. Within the totality of existence, he is treated to the possibilities that emerge but, once they pass, they could never be retrieved nor reversed. He is guided by every decision and every notion he undertakes. He becomes that which his experiences choose and never what he was hoping it wouldn’t be.
We exist in an eternal continuum enclosed within its own totality. Its end is its beginning. Its beginning is its end. The reason of being is logically unreasonable, yet it is always forming concepts and axioms; concepts which exist outside the sensible and, at the same time, are within it. It is through a system of reason in which being is able to exist as a being-in-the-world; a corroborating and classifying being; an intending being of substance determined through its shaping and re-shaping of intrinsic possibilities of its own causality. Being uses causality for reasoning, while causality uses being as a universal necessity. Together they form the natural order of things. Separate, they are the visibly invisible components which envelop space and time. Being is a-being-with-conscience that understands itself as a necessary form, that its space is its “here” and its time is its “there” and its future, by its unpredictability, places it in the realm of essentially being “nowhere.”
The past never completes itself. It occurs and recurs throughout the present and into the future. New interpretations and meanings emerge; a revitalization takes place and “what was” is continuously consumed by “what will be.” It is a feeding frenzy of the future swallowing the past. But there are always remnants, relics of time gone by which join the present, providing, for the historical experiencer, new passages and inroads which specifically contain his unique purposiveness, his freedom, and his intentions. He designs and develops his existence through these undertakings tied to his own history. Each movement and change follows a stream of earlier moments and provides new and necessary situations which can never be considered insignificant, but are more the apodictic outcome of a being-in-time. His past is continuously giving birth; his thoughts and actions, the remuneration of his existence paid out to a future that is tainted, but is always unforeseen and unplanned.
The morose existence within the corridors of loneliness delineates a stoppage, or a dropping-away, from the stream of experience-with-others. The other is suddenly more vivid, more of a presence for the lonely consciousness, and represents a more meaningful world outside and an arrangement in which everything seems to fall into place without the lonely taking part. Each victory, each downfall, and each notion of togetherness exists outside the lonely consciousness. It becomes estranged and self-destructive. It is a consciousness-without-direction; a consciousness which slowly and purposefully, through its feeling of being detached, falls outside the everydayness and becomes the wounded consciousness that cannot enjoy its own solitude. For, solitude is voluntary while loneliness is not. Thus, the lonely consciousness feels “tossed-out” and unattached from the world. Within this personal feeling of disorder, the world that it beholds is its immediate transgressor and becomes a world of disdain and destruction carrying the seeds of an impending demise. It is a self-induced surrender into a personal existence that slowly becomes unreachable and unlivable.
Is it possible to know myself without first knowing the other? Does my consciousness precede consciousness of the other? I can never be fully transparent to myself, nor can I ever know , to what extent, I am “being” myself without knowing who I am through the perception of the other. What meanings would be meaningful, what projections are presentable, and so on, without others to recognize what they are and their significance to the world; to myself, or to themselves? The embodied experiencer is already a social experiencer and one who shares visions, approximations, projections, etc. Once opened into the social world, the experiencer sees himself through the other. The other shapes his presence and limits it with his own presence, his own space and territory. What fills the time-horizon is not only the consciousness that perceives its surroundings, but a shared consciousness through a shared surrounding in an always emerging coexistence. One doesn’t exist singularly. In order to perceive existence, to recognize that one is corporeally connected to a reality, the embodiment of the other is paramount. It is the sine qua non for the impossibility of being within the corporeal boundaries of an impossible reality.
Being is being-for-another. It is an imposing of the dynamic interplay of roles and situations that make up the “we-experience.” Without it, being would have a flattened and isolated existence. Through dialogue, certain meanings share themselves through those who are interacting. These shared meanings are abstract formations of underlying thoughts ascribing a particular stand or place. Through this dialectical interplay, the speaker becomes the hearer and the hearer becomes the speaker. When one speaks he is listening to himself listening through the other. When the hearer is hearing he is speaking the speech being spoken through the speaker. This is the dialectical unfolding of a communal act in which two or more beings interact and invade each other’s time and space. Each one, through language, positions themselves within the world and, through this co-mingling of consciousness’s, creates a resulting actuality that falls into existence.