king and beggar

[Reciprocality]

We spontaneously attribute properties to distinct things from comparing them, but only if we spontaneously fix on their sensorial difference.

 

What does it take to see two very distinct items as the same, assuming there is anything similar between them?

 

Our proclivity to attribute distinct properties to distinct things which goes beyond their sensorial distinctness is in one way identical between us all, but in another way takes on a different character between us all.

Other people can consistently see the coherence between the character that judgement takes and our personal character, in fact they can see it as the surest thing in the world.

We can say with confidence then that our personal character is the sufficient reason not for those distinct properties but for our attributing them.

 

What happens if this proclivity of judgement, this spontaneity always reflecting the coherence of the individual person, suddenly ceased?

 

Surely sufficient distinctness is a sensorial business, while sufficient similarity is a memorial one?  In either case spontaneity is the arbiter, becomes translated into intelligibility, natural semantics.

 

The distinctness of the two items in our senses is fixed on, they coincide in our consciousness, our ideas subsume them equally spontaneously, would we have reason to question our judgement if it happens by itself, without any conceivable hidden motive?

 

For two very distinct items to be seen for their similarity, as then a first reaction to them, something must have changed in the character of the one who otherwise attributed ideas to their distinctness. 

 

My questions: 

 

1. what must change in the character of such a person who at first impression sees the king and the beggar as similar?

2. what is different in a) our process of fixing on the concepts or ideas which depicts those similarities between those very different things and those concepts or ideas which depicts their difference? How does either of these mental representations relate to our culturally inherited semantics, how do they relate to the world, which are like diamonds surviving a hundred generations of force and which disintegrated in a generation or two?

Edited June 14 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

The relevant buzzwords becomes cliche, and cliche happens because of the borrowed future inherent to language and human opportunism, thus the tendency for these undying words to be associated with their feigned use.

Dignity

Resilience

Tolerance

Animated

Energetic

Present

Measured

Enjoying

Living

Being

 

^They are perennial, wouldn't their significance change for those people who instead of experiencing the world through the needle of comparison, that tendency which always reflects most intensely their individuality, the coherence of the whole individual, started seeing distinct things as aspects of the same?