Reciprocality

Some relations are between parts and wholes, some parts pertain almost exclusively to some wholes and some wholes are almost exclusively associated with certain parts. It is reasonable to expect intellectual inertia to pertain to such relationships, there appear to be two general ways to disrupt such inertia and both appear to potentiate or actualise originality. You could find a whole for which such a part could theoretically pertain (lateral thinking) or you could theorise from such a part-whole relationship a contingency on some external variable--that is not itself contingent on either of the part or the whole--such that the absence of biconditionality between the part and whole justifies theoretical relation between that part and a potential other whole. In either case you have altered the implication between a part and a whole to a part and more than that whole, you have pluralised its application, relative to the rigidity of the initial part-whole relationship this is original. How many examples are there of famous works of art where the inertia of a part-whole relationship has not been overcome, and when they are so overcome, by which process other than the two i proposed?

Is the next natural question .. Do we reject others, why so? Could we do so without it accompanying the unique self? And is the natural antimony following therefrom, this? Either we can both be original but must remain in the unique self-construct, or be unoriginal and achieve a state of no self?

Can rejection be cause for originality, or can the reason you reject something also be the reason you have an original thought? Why do you reject certain things at all, and in which contexts? Are there patterns to the rejections, are there patterns to what is rejected? Could these patterns be anything else than an intersection of events, an identification of what is the same between different things? How many terms can be substituted for "rejection" where originality is still necessitated some of the time? Is this list of substitutions exhaustive, invariant under any change of environment or discourse? If so, what is this nebulous principle pertaining to all these? You may propose some specified intentionality as that principle, is there anything that could substitute for that? If not, what is the intentionality necessary to produce original thought independently of whether it does so through whatever can substitute for rejection (if the situation were such that your mind can not naturally allow you to think of anything that can substitute for rejection such to achieve originality then shouldn't this be quite telling as to what originality essentially is?)?

A pink elephant in the living room is less of a synthesis and more of an amalgamation. Identifying invariances across different things may be the only way to achieve originality, by inferring the intent that ties those differences together and contrasting it to an idealised alternative. It is natural for humans of any age to do this because it is effectively to be in control and therewith reduce distress and uncertainty, we identify as a unique sense of self because we have done this very thing thousands or millions of times. Originality is akin to dividing one number with another and achieve insight into the value that distributes in equal proportion between them, the pink elephant in the living room is akin to adding two numbers to achieve nothing more than what they already were. Originality thus is like an insight into the intersection of things (the independent variable they rely on, their invariance, their mutual essence, their substitution class), absence of originality is like having only insight into their respective location or proximity among each other.

Its the fallacy of the false dilemma or false dichotomy It arises when we treat the law of excluded middle that deals with whole propositions as being either true or false and instead treat every subject of a proposition as constituting either of two oppositely defined properties. This is a substantial fallacy because proposing that x is false about y is without further qualification (or by itself) neutral with regard to what is true about y, (although not entirely neutral with regard to what is true about some of all subjects, if you wanted to have a consistent and generalised sub-propositional logic). To mitigate this kind of thinking is hard, because the reason we commit that fallacy is the very pattern recognition and conceptual grouping that serves us so well, so much so that the nuance we hold so highly is developmentally conditioned on and thinkable through the focus on those false dichotomies, that contextualise and situate them with the clarity necessary to do so. edit: minor additional qualifications

@Inliytened1 The connection is the interesting part The implication of the problems the questions elucidate is that selective bias creates tension between the full reality and the chosen reality, that this leads to us only occupying a part of ourself at any given moment, and not the whole self, not the whole reality.

If self-awareness were the generality among events AND events were disharmonious, what is it about the intrinsic properties of events that is in conflict?

@Emerald Events repeats and only thereby do we identify them, unless we identify a singular event through its similarity to another event. In both cases there is a generality, so far as they are conclusions the former would be called inductive and the latter deductive. Is this tendency for generality self-awareness? Or is the self-awareness additional to this tendency? Assuming the curious proposition that "events can in principle be in harmony" holds true and there were thousands of various events, maybe millions, and all of them were generalised, and all generalised events were self-awareness, would we rely on those events being themselves actually in harmony for that self-awareness to be in harmony with itself? And if those events do fail to be in harmony with one another, can that be an intrinsic property of the events themselves or is it a property of them already interacting with a disharmonious self? If the answer to this question is determinable, would it be critically important to answer it? -- If self-awareness were additional to the tendency for generality among events, would that be compatible with events only being disharmonious through their interaction with that self-awareness? If self-awareness were the generality among events, would that be compatible with events being disharmonious?

It will likely get better and worse as you age, by a similar logic that allows you to become both more and less similar to others your own age. Your internal consistency, integrity and character will make life better, but the vast exposure to different experiences and perspectives will make the world less consistent and this can make life worse.

It is not so much writing itself that is at issue there, it is more so the conception of a generalised other person, which funnily is the actual crux in our metaphysical speculations, more specifically: how to be freed from that concept and the immensity of the narratives connected to it

@Carl-Richard It is easy to solve paradoxes by proposing constraints on what counts as a subject in a statement, such as through simplicity (rationalistic ontology) or simply uniqueness of morphological (non-semantic) composites. From here the liars paradox would be refuted by not meeting the criterion of subjects in statements, since the subject already involves a higher order property (semantics). But this does not satisfy those who seek an ontologically invariant logic that applies synthetically beyond the experiential ground from where that logic draws its concepts, and this is where substitutional quantification comes in--where "other-reference" is baked in to the relation between the quantification over subjects and the dispersion of subjects satisfying quantification at all, hence substitution.

I'll also ask a more open ended question, have you considered whether substitutional quantification can allow us to rescue logic from paradox and thus without the embarrassing appeal to ontological or pragmatic constraints on what counts as subjects in propositions?

How will your critique handle the concepts of essence, independence and necessity, each supervening in the same way on the humanly every-day practice of reasoning? How primitive will you treat the concept of negation as being? And how do you utilise this concept without regressing to the rationality you criticise? Will you have a general account of the difference between concepts or principles that are contextually bound and not contextually bound--or will you deny invariance altogether and propose complete pluralism?

@Leo Gura Will the video involve paraconsistent logic, intuitionistic logic, fussy logic, mereology, process philosophy, coherence theory of truth and underdetermination as a basis for a holistic or relativistic alternatives to what you see as rigid rationality? Will you explore the developmental and phenomenological origins of concepts, the fallacy of reification and overextension that rationality unawaringly often commits to with regard to those? Will you explore the history of rationalistic ontology and epistemology and connect these to the problems holistic approaches solves? Will you explore the connection between paradox / self-reference to variable-quantification in first order classical logic, if so how do you do this without proposing a correspondence theory of truth with subject-criterions? Why would paradox be a property inherent to rationality if it can be avoided by better logics?

Who could have predicated that these ideas would transpire from instead of developing naturally by admission of everything one does not know, one develop on the basis of the assertion that one knows and is everything. Insanity becomes freedom from a supposed mass delusion, a delusion perpetuated by not initially admitting to knowing almost nothing. But you are only becoming less free by defining yourself in relation (whether affirmatively or negatively) to a delusion that only pertains to the limited way in which you understand why humans behave as they do.