Publicity and privacy has no essential difference, but specifically only personal mind could be  independent. And its claim must be so appropriate. 

In analytical philosophy, ordinarily description means conceputually intorospective view to  our all acts, but  that thing is based on our objectively regarded interpreting or justifying our own them to publicly, then its claiming essence means so publicly regarded objectivity.
Nevertheless, we ordinarily do not ntry to confess our mind holding internal intention, for instance, when we want to invest our own assets for newly progressing new  company, but yet so well-known to any investor, we usually keep secret to our its act. Then very personal mind we'd already made up mind  to do something is not private matter, because ordinarily private matter must be defined as what any public view could permit us have the freedom to get secret, then its aspect must be guaranteed form as externally we should respect. But personal mind must include any kind of secrecy in mind with resentment, hatred, decision of retaliation, or tough  revenge. In  other words, even very evil-minded illegal  conspiracy also could be included to its concept. Of  course, usually we can suppress that mind but any resentment mind could never be eliminated so completely, normally only that thing could be plausible.

Probably, all ones could be confident that only personal mind is the most omportant, but they all usually dare to mentioning it to anybody so easily. In other words, confessing something so plainly must accompany the social responsiblity then, oridinarily, we must withhold any impulsive mind in hesitation. That hesitation is usually caused from legally signified, not humanity nor ethically subjective never yet not dependent on religiously honestily actuated. Ordinarily legally justified things and ethically considrable things could have so tough gap, but that issue should be left to another religious issue artcile even to me(that debating chance must be held either to me, at upcoming day).

And the thing (as the personally tought or decisively detached or kind of convincing to ourselves so personally indwelled in mind) could have some so certain reason to make them all so. Necessarily, those them could mean so much, so necessarily just personally.
Eventually, they as understanding through third person and us as understansing conceptually in social nature and our mind's aspect in accepting that thing as understanding through just first person only to us personally not publicly (as secrecy's siginificative mind) are mutually essentially gapped, but simultaneously, so publicly these things formally, in other words, so legally or socially in ethical order, easily repleaceable, not so easily replaceable is just only each myself for us, in mind.

Then, necessarily publicly regarding idea or justice and publicly secrecy guaranteed idea as regarded to be private or so formally personlly recognized are so same track as what we should take in mind, because they has essetially ideitical interlocking so substantially. 
In other words, publicly admittable publicity and keeping privacy as former and privatly given our secrecy keeping right are at the face and back relevance. 
But, what we have in mind essentially to these things is certainly discerned. And if we discover even these things' easily replaceable site, that must be our talking, or so as conversation, toward it, our immanently stocked secrecy in memory as kind of negatviely unforgettable or traumatic painful mind ache or injury are essentially mutually another dimensioned things, you know!

In conclusion in terms of former sentences could be based on easily replaceable context in conversation with third personal view as former and not nor absolutely never replaceable only first personal immannent traumatic or never forgattable mind are mutually so essentially another things.

Of course, latter's our mindset or memorable case could be seen or regarded so exceptional, and anybody could understand so easily honestly. Then that thing is never legally regarded it, and just personally it and to it, only religion could address with, that claim could be taken to these discernment so publicly for the first time.
And necessarily, actually, the latter domain issue could be addressed by only in terms of formally understandably, analytical philospophy's mind philosophy, and entirely understandably addressed by only phenomenology.

Thus, we could say that this so personally impressed traumatic memory could be equivalent with so postitively impressed unforgettable memory in same dimension. In other words, traumatically flashback actuating negative resentment and traumatic heart and brain injury are on the same plate with very healed memory with given behavior, kindness, affection, and smile, or talked words.
Then, usually these all things could be taken at academic circle on the table of theory inspection and researching, but at the matter of fact, very important. Then consequently lately I think that these things are seen not only so specifically personal but also so universally integral things, so much.

However, we need to analyze that thing so honestly, again.
What  does being personal otherwise, being personally unforgettable touched and traumatic things mean?

Just that thing could never be solved so easily, anybody could be aware of its truth, anybody must be noticeably interested the thing to be important but yet analyzed nor digested so well.
That personal thing might have been so unexplainable but so undoubtful to anybody's mind, and actually that could be so obviously plain only at our mind, then it could be emotinally grave, but simultaneously that mind could understand our socially talked humor or kind of very delicate sensitivity as humanity and touched sense in mind.
At the matter of fact, tnat is very exactly definite absolute mind, and rather we from its core mind, any justice, moralistic behavior, and socially gently regarded kindness, and affectinoate acting must be crated not at gap between very conscious mind and subconsciously autonomously driven.

Presumably, it must be our core mind not on base of legality nor social obligation, in other words, it means absolutely core mind to understand our regarding mind to us as essential being in world as ∃.

In other words, ∃ means our absolutly undoubtful mind and an idea to all being.

That thing certainly must be proposed and expressed by DesCartes as cogito, or cogitatio.

In terms of these interpretations, UK philosophers as empiricalists as their tradition and old continental them with DesCartes are mutually insert some unidentified crevasse between them. That could not be at just hostilty, but actually, very nervous paralleled relevance, we could say. Eventually they naturally and necessarily show their own parallel running straightforwardly in eutually another track.

To human, in terms of other one's act could be regarded as all socially becoming realized phenomenal obserbable matter, then all these are just plainly objective. But at least to us, so personally, our own myself's act is very absolutely exceptional.

As far as concerned with our own act, the truth that mind must be sustained only by our own mind's will to get personal doing done, never becoming it.

And there must be our absolute reason to be at person, or being presonal.

Then, necessarily, privacy means socially admittable as publicly given personal right, then very objective justice, and kind of absolute right at least at democratic countries. Meantime, our personal mind's acting's actuation and all unforgettable mind stocked in memory and actuation to do something at these piled up reality only we personally know are subjectively motivated internally thought and immanently generated it.

Only it must be, not in terms of publicness, just purely personally actuated thing.

Then, today's subjective structure could be displayed with next.

                                                      ∃ ⇔  ∃⊃ (∀⊃∃)

Necessarily, (∀⊃∃) means our extarnally working out act, so with motivated mind.
However, it could evidence our essential being's nature, then, it must be included in being.
Then, being's presence belongs to or consists in at least dually mutual relevant including to each other, then its overlaping could develop either to more than tripertitely signified, then next chance to debate subsequently from this article, we'd address with these contents.

With its absolute premise, we could do anything publicly and privately in no discernment, so  socially significably, not only positively but also negatively, spontenously and plainly subjectively.

(to be continued)

Apr. 16th.  2021