The cat I bought was petite. And that small one was cute. But I don't say that mosquitoes are cute even though they are small. For the most part, creatures of that size are many pests. By the way, even if you say that it is cute because it is small, there is a proper size limitation.

It's a kind of limitation, such as being small for a dog or small for a cat.

If there was a beetle that was about the size of an adult domestic cat, it would be unpleasant and creepy, and conversely if there was an adult domestic cat that was about the size of a normal beetle, it would also be unpleasant. You will think. There will be a limit to the cuteness of smallness.

Upper three mentioned sentences' signified interpretation must mean being's one appearing state's description's modifying our mind's posture and informative intention.
And if these essential elemental nature could be replaced with definitive cognition, like next thing could be articulated.

✹Being that term's signified intention is too vague to make our consciousness focussed in taking subjective conversation, but e.g. our familiarity around feeding pet could be our opted subject, for instance, next sentences could be submitted so necessarily.
"To us, pet's being( or, being for pets) could rely on its sizable familiarity and our own favor at choice."
Though, essentially, being's interpretable mentioning must need modified condition like upper three examled sample sentences.

✡Meanwhile, presence could be almost replaced with being, but only existence is not done so.
It usually means one as so philosophical term in used context e.g. around ontological content's essay or prose.
However, as usual our usage around "existence" could be replaced with either "survival", "stay","appear, or emerge".

Presence could mean either so larger extent in explainable usage. Though almost it must be the same with "being".

This time at the last addressing subject, I'd like to grapple with this time appearing sibjective term MODIFICATION as first step trial.

MODIFICATION means ONE WORD, TERM'S USAGE'S DEBATABLE and PREMISE for conversation's intention, e.g. to each pet, we usually have generally common recoginition, then, to cats and dogs, these things' familiarity is besically premised in mentioning intention.
And at the matter of fact, THIS PREMISED FAMILIARITY must be one of typical our informatively actuated mentionable subjective scheme.
Because, for talking or so, that premised subjective focussing could smooth our talking focussed intention.

On the other hand, UNFAMILIARITY could take another necessity in setting no mutually understandable premise. In other words, to so very exceptionally particular and unique subjective content, we must need conscious switching. E.g. what makes us discriminate smallness as saizable standard for both pets' familiarity and vermin or injurious insect or so as exceptional case's taking subject as topically and objectively.

With these sampled cases' inspection, we can conclude like next.

In talking, arguing or debating necessity, FAMILIARITY and UNFAMILIARITY's premissing or premissed inclination and intending mind for us are so essentially different or consciously differentiated so necessarily.

THESE OBVIOSLY TAKEN MUTUAL DISCERNMENT means that OUR OPTIONAL SUBJECTIVE IDENTITY must mean OUR MIND AND INTENDING POSTURE IN CONSCIOUSNESS, and these serially taken procedures in mind must be OUR PRESENCE'S OWN IDENTIFIED SUBJECTIVE DEFINITION in half unconscious or subconscious AUTONOMOUSLY APPLIED OUR MIND and BRAIN CONVERSION.

For the present, only these could be articulated, but in these things, what elemental siginification is preserved, to it not yet I got clearilzed comprehension nor formulated or equated mechanism, and that thing could be my next aim as the must in future my research.

(to be continued)

Jan.  2nd.     2021