# intro:
Phenomemalistic B) [word stressed out] prelude: (From a private Correspondence), birthday, [35th year];
What I appreciated upon this day is, that all’s in its solemn, non-consoling, but reconciling continuous emptiness of anxiety, as Sartre means by his French word: “Nothingness,” in his “Being and Nothingness,” where is talked about the continuous emptiness of existence, of an anxiety revealing the presence in its own presence; of itself own. And the fact we’re capable to conceive in mind, we’re alive, for we taking, feel, observe –perceive, absorb and categorize. But also, paradoxically, still being under that pressure which is devastating to mind, but its pain is a symptom of existential beauty. Well, so in other words: What I liked upon today was it was completely normal mundane day, all taken care of, as I hold my “best” beliefs, but all in that stillness of the string of uncertainty and suspense of possibility, intensity in revolting like if in someone’s other’ self.
Reading fundamentals of Phenomenological Essay on Ontology; A little remark on the thing: It’s not any metaphysics; no Spinoza, therefore not really that “knowledge of knowledge,” as Ontology in Q of being assumedly proposes, but it’s a series of comprehensive writing(s), one actual assumption about how the “Nothingness,” as the beyond-cogito essence of being, stands and reveals itself in its nauseating principle in our daily lives, I see that Heideggerian concept in Sartre went on astray from science to almost to a mysticism; perhaps the scene of mysticism is reliable to his philosophy, as a common matter of understandings general public has about concept of “philosophy” anyway goes. The “Angs” & its prevalence is the moment when of the epiphanical state of ‘being ashamed of yourself,’ self-aware of you own existence, being simply “guilty,” almost like in Freudian sense, for “one showed his own representation for himself into the ‘outer’ & obviously suffers by / with it,” – by & according to his differential, his uniqueness, when he’s fully alert to it, then he’s / she’s on through path to lead of understanding the principle of “being aware in the world,” sense of anxiety of daily life, but that of a matter when you have the existential Angs instead of more vivid dreams at night-time, for you’re being idle at work, and the mater of when upside down the other way-- then afterwards, when it’s the opposite way. When ‘I take an offence,’ I am being alert of undertaking the fact that I perceived other being instead of me, and I am aware of it. Such is the “easy comprehension” of why is so easily approachable to “take offense in enjoinment,” so to speak, so we prove our “justification of our non-self-realized non-being yet not fully maturely,” so then we feel, therefore more, and also, ashamed. Such is to the perceivance of the phenomena from our perception into our own world, while we struggle with recognition of basics beginnings in Qs of Being.
# add#1
Being as a constant affirmation of your realization of negation / nihilation of the 'outer', in such same principle then, too. It's an affirmation towards non-cogito-being, which is not me in order to prove my own being. That we can call a state of ontological proof of nature of principal being. (Idea of shame included same as instrumentalization of moods, then, too.)
# add#2
By nothing we recognize that something, same as when Socrates says, "I know I know nothing," he knew his possession of truth. Therefore by negation we are realizing the essential existence of being by its opposition; non-being. B) essence of existence, nothingness, also provides the groundwork for the negation, for non-being, our self-realization by affirmation of our being with non-being, i.e. what you are not, and provides the base for being in state of alert consciousness of existence of your own being, and others.
#add#3
Nothingness belongs to the nature & true possession of actual intermediate immediate, being, and provokes the essence of non-possibility same as all the ‘world-possibility.’ Since it’s revaluating the possibility of non-existence, also an existence, the essence of being: “anxiety,” as was stated, [the famous conception of “Angst”] and easily to be understood-- viz more Heidegger—it also exists inside and only as a part of the existence of the being itself, and therefore without being there is no nothingness, and the continuous emptiness which is the nature of nothingness, is then the essence and motivating for being to stay alive; a positive sign with negative “stimung.” (Q. of “the instrumentalization of moods.” ~Heidegger once more.)
#add#4
Anguish; not only a form of freedom. But the only an actual description, goes as follows: – Epln.: Consciousness is then facing itself in the Qs of the past with the future form of self-cogito-reflection; the prevalence of such as is character of the emptiness, and the proverbial “lost time,” then. Such a moment is a manifestation in / of conception of human ‘freedom’ in life in general. It’s well-known as the “Grief” and “Anguish.“
In other words: Freedom is a motive and fact of an inevitable doomed isolation whatsoever.
$Add#5
(Intermezzo)
Already since the birth of irrationalism we know that "things are beyond," for otherwise the "within," as regards to the 'eidos-essence', about which I'll express my opinion, only because it is an opinion, and not a fact; it's an essence, which is always a background for groundwork of the fact, the fact itself depends upon sense-opinion matter of sense-certainty, which is always accidental, and dependable upon ‘moods,’ and instrumentalization of present occurrences.
There cannot be only black & white & yes or no, for in that moment principles would lead the essences & not the facts; it's important to know that fact comes "as a matter of factly," and by a chance, it's therefore incalculable & purely an empirical knowledge. Uncollectable amount of facts signifies a insatiable temptation and symbolizes undermining all the dogmatic; for if all the dogmatic would be to held as counted, then our own question of self-certainty, therefore a certainty of our “Being-in-the world,” and samely “Being-at the-moment,” would be underestimated thereby by its own nature. Viz the phenomenological transcendence when “I see myself,” for “It is not now, not here, but there, and ‘never’.”
Why is there a necessity to "go beyond & below, or ‘within’, only the better Q of within," dwells in the confrontation between the strict of universal meaning, the fact, principle which is a purely only but a statement of refutation with negating the existing under the principle of contradiction, as to: 1) To state something is here we need to see causal principle which demands both space and time as inner a priori position 2) Refutation with the other, the outer confront, therefore an agreements after all, which as a A) Synthetically will prove it’s a priori standpoint, but not purely, for it is still empirical partially, B) Confusion of “many” with “one” as to a Q of circular proof & its opposition to the outer, C) When finally fact becomes clear, it is clear then only in our mind, and never fully mirrors the other side of our mind, which is the inner innate state of “non-existence, and also never mirrors anything from the outer side, which is imperfect in its empirical nature and therefore it’s always “unrecognizable”; so: The Fact is Only in Our Mind as The Innate Principle to Create The Principles.
But it all also has as essential nature, not only based upon our aperception, but also it's a matter of "subject matter," i.e. a matter of --also--, a subjectivity. Senses and sensuousness, then the material of perception gives it a moment of “empathy” for “that and that moment.” The ‘feel’ for it in general in any Q. Therefore the empirical leads to be more of a combination of the inner given & so-called an existence of the non-existence, which replaces it in case the essence is not there, and it's a pure fact only.
Why the essence is so subjective is a problem of psychology & its observation, and Being itself is absolute subjective observation of contradiction between the "not-here," "not-there,” with “never, and always and everywhere" and also what there is & conglomeration of the compound from the commonly & innerly ‘naturally’ "known."
Being is a summary of realization of all the subjectivity, therefore realization of the "non-existence," as regard to the possibilities of principles of facts, which are only but strict & universal, then a posterior & here & there, now, and never, always -- incompletely based ideas of the inner & outer, as to the fact of your understanding, which will be always but Limited, and is: forever, for combine all the knowledge is impossible, then reaching for gaining the principles is never-ending process of unattainable satuation of human sense of "sense-certainty," therefore, the non-existence anyway.
The going in the question for reaching to justify why "clarity for certain" is unclear, dwells in the fact where "there always ought to be 'something'," in order to realize that "I'm here", but still after all "I will know I'm here," for I am, for I think, which justifies my argument sustained of the inner principle of the innate as constanta, although even that is relative.
Reaching the "clear fact" will not work the moment when I sense the "Being," for then it's only but me myself, and the non-existence. And I observe that I exist as a not a leader of the "clear fact," but only an observant, and that is all.
Therefore we never can be "fully clear" in anything.
*
Viz: Theory of "angst," and instrumentalization of moods, as to relevance of possible “non-being.” –Source of Anxiety. &c. : (opened as well)
*
Our sense for self-certainty, and the Of the pondering for and about “The certain”, therefore that “here & there, now, and past,” in confrontation with the “Never, always, nowhere” is the confusion of inner perplexity of our being which annihilates our Q of Cogito, I.
I, as a Cogito, I assume that by confronting with reality, we see the possibility of non-existence, when the “mood” as that comes and forms the essence, there’re the eidos, the idea, the concept of, therefore here the Q of Being itself, so when the sense-certainty is in a moment of “non-realizing,” it realizes, and forms a principle; justify its own existence. That come comes on the scene an anxiety as a leading conception of fact of our existence, the “emptiness.”
Mater of exposition of clarifying the idea of science is then an epistemological progress of development of views in cooperation, it is a continuous ontology for asking, “How can science can make sense?” – “And how it is all possible at all?”
*
$Add#5
More to Sartre in Q of “Bad faith,” etc.
Note: Freedom as a relative demanded “confirmation” based upon limitations of your own freedom in comparison / relation, with the freedom of the “other.” (def.)
[1] Add also my Heidegger’ text(s)!