Stream of Consciousness

All knowledge as a whole may not need to be fully understood if the only “useful knowledge” helps an agent reach its end means but the idea of knowledge is extremely subjective. That’s because we don’t have a solid definition of what it is or what it means to truly know something. There are many theories for where knowledge arises from and whether or not it is, in totality, a relationship between what is and how the mind grasps it. Do we want to understand that a priori knowledge exists in the object itself and the mind defines it and is the mind what is revealing what the object contains that it is? Philosophy and psychology have many models to demonstrate systems of sensibility.


What is wanted must be understood before one knows what one needs to know. So, the value of anything that can be known is dependent on who knows it and whether or not it ought to be forgotten. The spectrum of necessity means that knowledge is something that must be initially known already. It creates an environment of familiarity that carries itself with the question of what needs to be known. Instead of settling on the fact that knowledge exists as a grand paradox, the importance of this writing is to demonstrate that there are ways of remodeling our experience with understanding and knowledge in order to identify an organized system rather than relying on the existence of self-devouring concepts.


(Definitions and Language)
There needs to be a linguistic distinction between thinking and what the mind does when it's idle. The thinking mind is what it does to information so it can't be what the entirety of the system is called because that confuses what something is with what it does.

It seems that the mind is a body of space that contains things within it called thoughts. You can define the body of space that your thoughts occupy and then define what is occupying that space but something to consider is that the mind doesn’t think thoughts because the mind isn't always thinking when thoughts are constantly occurring. Therefore, you’d want to define the many things that the mind does. Here we are saying that the mind contains thoughts that can be thought about by thinking about them. You can say the mind is always thinking but never necessarily about anything. This conclusion is probably met when we are trying to explain what it means for a thought to be thought about.


Maybe lines of reasoning are things thought about to the point where the process of thinking is no longer needed when grasping information. So, are thoughts just misunderstood information? Knowledge is what is known, and the mind knows information when it no longer requires the process of thinking to understand what it means. This exemplifies that there is a necessity to define methods of thinking and what kind of information is being processed.

{example of extending a model - thinking and mind / motivation}
Imagine that the thinking mind has a relationship with external motivation. Something external to one’s basic function of knowing has caused the process that is thinking whether it be from the desire to know or the demand to know as a necessity. An intersection could be created here that makes the world of ideas a three-dimensional space. You could say thoughts are brought into dimension when they are thought about because another element is added to the system.


(Forgetting and Instinct)
Time is a factor in why the grasp of information can suddenly be inaccessible. There’s no way to say what information can no longer be accessed and why. This is realized when the mind assumes that this is still accessible when it isn't. Surely you must know that you have forgotten something. Meaning that there is still an accessible body via logic that states the rule that something in this specific arena no longer contains any volume. That is the difference between never knowing and forgetting since there must be some kind of distinction between the two. The mind must evaluate the information and determine whether or not it is necessary, but this obviously is reliant on the time that something needs to be known. Different lines of reasoning have to exist in order to solve the variety of problems that present themselves throughout daily life. In order to grasp the body as well as its volume, one must remember when certain lines of reasoning are set up so as to access information within smaller and smaller amounts of time. Eventually becoming “first-hand knowledge” or possibly even instinct.




(Knowledge)
A completed line of reasoning can be known in itself but there is another level to what this means. Since knowing has such an impact on the environment then knowing things change the area around it. The thing known in itself is something that begins to react to immediate surroundings. It is a faculty that must see everything as it is which is an experience in high demand. That demand is due to its pure quality of being wanted which represents its innate value. Through a reductionist lens, every part is understood in relation to what is around it. This is becoming somewhat of a mantra at this point. Lines of reasoning make sense no matter what direction it is going because the information is not truly anything in itself. It is something in relation to something else. This could explain dichotomies and dualities that seem to be in either perfect equality or in absolute opposition. These ideas can only define themselves as far as the other does and they do so ad infinitum. That is because they are completely reliant and dependent on their opposites to hold any meaning at all.



(Categories)
Using a system that relies on a web of evidence doesn’t limit thinking to only certain models on every layer of comprehension. Since we know some concepts exist in dichotomies and pyramidal diagrams it’s safe to say that a singularity can be modeled with body and depth. These are only models and they are often based on our perception of external bodies. There is a Nature to how reality moves. This Nature is presented in time to our senses as Phenomena. Most models are based on empirical understandings of nature because it has so many ways of organizing themselves into perfectly reasonable parts. It is understandable to translate that Nature into a way to understand thinking. This is sensible until we want to conceptualize something that exists for the sake of itself which is a different kind of conclusion than what is being mentioned above. Something that exists for the sake of itself is something that is self-reliant. So, what exactly does it mean to depend on yourself to mean something? What is necessary is that meaning itself is the initial concept that means something for the sake of itself.



Resonating would mean that information became reliable. There is a system to the truth that requires the mind to detect it - and what isn't it? No matter the incentive of the person the mind must always be capable to know what is reliable and what is less valuable in terms of reliability. We need this reliability in order to interact with the will for what we previously called Instinct. If you choose to believe that instinct is highly “reliable” information we need to reconsider the grammatical preference for using the term reliable. Like if we decide to say this information is more dependable then we are including a new variable that determines a new facet of the design. What exactly are we relying on this information for? We rely on it to get us closer to the truth clearly. It may beg the question of what truth is but at this point, it is still such a stretch even from the clarity given by the model. To ask such a question would be an over-extension but what’s the cause of over-extending? The reasons may be in a more habitual part of our behavior that causes us to jump to conclusions. It’s still risky to use the words instinct and habit as two different ideas when to some extent they become synonymous which is the importance of designing the model to break down conceptual entities as things in themselves as best as one possibly can.

Since we ask what the truth is, but we do not know it, there is a self-devouring nature to the question. We only have instances where we feel the embrace of familiarity. So we have to constantly break down ideas by how they appear to fit in with the rest of the gathered information. There are various ways that the mind ties ideas together so that they have a seamless, sensible transition. Grammatically, conjunctions introduce subordinate clauses but this has many more dimensional aspects than a sentence does because it embodies the vital necessity of the clause’s existence in the first place. It is the vessel that holds the value of why the line of reasoning has been something the mind has built upon for as long as it has. This is due to the fact that it all exists through the scope of two major lenses. That is the internal and external words are made up of the fundamental building block that is information. In the best-case scenario, sensory information is reliable because it was experienced. However, even the most defined experience can leave room for interpretation. That is because sensory information isn’t understood in enough definition if it doesn't have an external element to relate to it. Our capacity to interact with anything our senses detect has to do with a kind of information that is not necessarily known but is felt. That is the internal element to knowing something in enough definition to say it is known through enough purification and clarity to be considered known.

This internal variable is the depth of a thought that is bouncing through one’s nerves. It is merely a signal to a greater collective of networks that create the complexity of a personality. Nothing external is truly what it appears to be in its purest state. What the object is being seen through something saturated with subjectivity. Yes, the couch is red but is it the same red as the curtains from your childhood home? The purest representation of the object is impossible to see without the contamination of your ultimate perspective. This means that your stance should never fully depend on pure knowledge being from an inner or outer source. Systems that depend on one being where pure knowledge exists fail to consider the importance of building depth and instead rely on going infinitely into one in order to lose the other. It only seems to cause issues such as locus of control and cognitive dissonance.