something in the rain

[Reciprocality]

There is something about the rain, how it lives so very well also at our deadest.

There is something about the soul, how it carries us out into any such fluid.

There is something about steps, how each of such multiplies into any presence and how tomorrow forms in that presence as its ultimate end, there is something in the rain.

A becoming into itself, an emergence for its own end trough accidents of its substance. Elements in their reduction as emergent from a form they are without, empty.

Elements as accidents not in what they represent, neither in how they appear, but in how as appearance they are given in reason, they are forms given us trough our reason, but not as such forms the condition for that in which reason takes hold, mind. Otherwise we would as suggested elsewhere, explode into a hot soup.
Elements as essential representations of the thing in itself, but accidental of it in how they are combined together to fit into our desires. Elements as analogies in combinations, as necessary on their own, metaphysics as the maintenance of their compound.

Metaphysics proper speaks not in the positive, but acknowledges merely how for being there is required that nothing is taken away from it, that in certain neutrality nothing more must be said than 'I wish me some music while in the storm I carry on', to not die of apathy in the face of insignificance as the ultimate realization not of the purity of awareness which has nowhere to turn, but as our self's certain annihilation. Our, mine certain annihilation from the manifold of temporal variation, the soul coming to rain.

Never completely to return in figure yet never therefore totally absent in form.
 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

My thoughts are like fluids, which is how they are so hard to predict the outcome of and justify fully, yet so well adapted to fill out empty surfaces and spaces.

 

I have changed dramatically to counterbalance that, I have put shackles on the mind to hold objects with its hands, and it were good I did.

[Reciprocality]

For that which is possible there can not be a possible state giving rise to it, yet for anything actual to at all be given it must be also such a thing of the power precisely to make something else possible, this then which is possible is confined to and never itself beyond what is at any state actual, that there are anything at all is thereby a dance of the will in an interplay with the things not initiated in possibility by means of it but given life from it. What is ultimately possible is therefore all things, the reason we are given any particular such light is neither here nor there, for any sufficient reasons are self evident each, and in proof thus found in all directions.

To that which is possible only actual states can give rise, and in all actual states possible ones are come actual in the force of will, but owing to some force Y there are the possible in the actual itself, this Y must have no inverse for otherwise nothingness as a then condition for infinite will would be necessary, but such can not be the case for then what is actual now as the condition for what is possible in itself would be subject to doubt, as nothing else than doubt suffices in the face of things which could possibly have been otherwise, such things then are taken both as possible and actual with no regard for bare minimums of cohesion. 

The problem arises when the will is confused for the means of thinking its representation, as predicating the past of that which is only present in our aid for making actual what in the actual is potential. The freedom of the will, though minuscule in its own right, would never be so powerless and out of order to be contained in that by means of which it gives rise to new moments (such as memories), instead it must be in their eternal proximity. We are then justified in saying that for the little control we have -- nothing carries over into the past but all is with us towards all futures.

That which is possible f in what is actual T (now) may very well itself be necessarily actual trough inference; in a prior universal chain of events yet determined as such as the actuality F of that possibility f long after T. In fact, no world failing to follow this rule of dual actuality to possibility is even imaginable (imagination as the outer limitation for all possible worlds), and such a world would thus be impossible. Something which is possible can not be the condition for the possibility of something else, the will must be the only thing preventing what is possible from actuality

The dual actuality to any potential are related to those potentials by means of either a-p in force Y or p-a in will, all of which are totally encompassed by a law of causality, which itself takes the form either in 1.  magnitudes of substances / magnitude as duration in time (part to part) or 2.  emergence (community of parts in a (seeming) immediate and definite whole), both of which constitutes a finitude of objects given us as patterns in what I deem constant reality as =1.

in addition to paragraph 1: What is actual can never itself be the singular condition for something else that is actual, due to which temporality crossing (visiting) the constants in reality (substances) as that necessary addition makes determinate those substances and ultimately the supreme necessity of not only something as opposed to nothing, but also of the very something in particular. We may expect that which is equal to 1 in the combined whole of the world of substances to fail our instruments are their smallest, not merely by engineering but also by our own intellectual upper bound, as evident already

 

reminder of need of edit