E.g. in general, Bergson can be regarded as idealist, or spiritualist and Husserl can be done as Phenomenologist, but in fact, to the two ones's own mind, each narrated thing which can be pictured is not that easily confirmed nor identified.

In other words, we have no method to confirm our own immanent minds' own perfect mutual match or not in definite discerning. Though, in general to us, meaning is in general very arbitrarily set and mutually grasped, but truly shared mind in accord won't be evidenced. 

Thereby our mutual understanding and accord must be so arbitrary. In other words, at superficially appearing notional accord mutually we can make in daily life and mutually truly the identical understanding embodied or not in discrimination are never so indispensably acquired condition to us, intrinsically indeed. 

Thereby, anything made by us in our own community is simply arbitrary, no other definitive cognition must never be set to our own reality. Focussing meaning presicely strictly as it focused, that desire is one of our mind's easily falling contradiction, you know.

After all, no matter what we think and feel in mind, only what we express externally could be regarded formally what we think and feel, only the thing is regarded as the truth, only it gets the absolute regulation to us. And only the thing is the absolute our social regulation.

Though, if we human being could be creature whose brain seen from anybody and it makes anybody know the brain owner's idea, we must have not owned language communication in civilization of us. 

(Irregularly continued)

Apr. 17th.   2024