Our mind could be so enigimatic, even if we can have some certain conviction to the presence.
Nevertheless, to it, we think so profoundly enigmatic, though we are apt never to mention it so directly having some procrastinating previously.

We actually in daily realiy, to anything, have some mutually very contradictory, but almost at no having question, both symmetrical ideas.
E.g. to different sex as differentiated gender ones, we really have each personally discerning mind to anybody, in other words, we have respectful emotion and attitude to anyone, nevertheless, meanwhile we can have anytime so generalized ideas around different sex ones' presence. These two our mind's idea mutually very symmetrically gapped recognition, nevertheless, both two harshly contrary assessing mind could be held in our mind, unexpectedly not taking it in contradictory synchronicity nor not confused ordinary mind.

Simply saying, we have very personally analyzable precise assessing mind and very simply summarized generalized mind, so simultaneously to anything we can have contact, meeting, or witnessing.

In other words, we have constantly so mutually contradictory and hostile recognition and emotion, to anything. To very daily familiar and integrally important presence, attachment and detachment in other words, very positive mind and negative one simultaneously.
Though the most lavable object for us is simultaneously the most hateful one for us too.

That ambivalence could be that our mind has synchronicity around having mentality, emotion and evaluation to one thing as some specified presence, namely we have both so privately recognitive mind and so generally recognitive one in no contradiction.
That subjectively known and objectively known are mutually at almost no contradictory mind.

That our mind's nature probably means that we all perhaps have mutually arranging between so passionately attached mind and so objectively detached one at the same time in no contradiction, though very private thing must be so general one at the same time.
And to that our mind's nature or modus ponens, we usually have no enigmatic questionable mind.

Though, almost everything for us is very subjectively regarded private thing and simultaneously so objectively regarded general one in the same dimension in terms of time and space regard to each other.

That mind dispostion must be applied to that our own mind is so specifically regarded, but simultaneously it could be just so ordinary one of them as one example in any other one whose possession could be almost in not so bigger difference nor gap.

Though, inductively we could judge that we can have sympathy to not well-known one's mind, but on the other hand, to so attached familiar lovable one for us, we can have very remotely detched emotion and mentality around keeping human relation.

E.g. to other one's pain, or any tangibly felt sensation as bodily known thing, we'd never have certain evidencing around the one's pain or that way to feel so tangibly as the same with ours as each fundamentally different subject and objectively different person, nevertheless, we can have very sad sympathy to any other one's pain in looking at so closely, observing so objectively remotely.

Actually, if we have any really tangible sensation to any other one's it so synchronically, we'd have no words with discerning around ordinarily no pain and painful.
However we have each precisely separated condition's nouns, adjectives and adverbs.
That fact must evidence that basically we can have implicitly common sense that we all are completely mutually separated presence.

Nevertheless, in nowadays, in Ukrain, so many warfare sacrifices could have been outputted as the warfare miserable outcome as death casualities number increasing, even we know that directly to our own life, no so concerned damage could not be made, nevertheless, even only through madia reportings made by reporters, mass-communication concern companies, we can not be so easy and pleasanly relaxed.

That our so desicively typical mentality must evidence that we have mind to feel and have sensation even to any other person's pain and harshly suffering thing, so really sensed sensitivity and sympathized emotion.

Otherwise, these our autonomously attending mind's catching capability and the truth that so precisely schemed and deeply considerable process passed ideas or ceated something are not always so eraborate nor so the best masterpiece nor so.
In other words, our mind must have some universal nature that effort or so minute analysis or so could not be so absolutely trustworthy value to our practical reality.

That truth could make associate us with that anaytical philosophy must depend on so precise logical procedure but simultaneously, to that manner and tradition attending analytical philosophy, we can have some mentality around its procedural our method, or kind of comprehensive idenrity.
That could evidence that our mind has disposition that very anaytical procedure must mean so formalized descriptive procedural dimensioned item integral for archival necessity, though that necessity is never neglectable e.g. at daily necessity around usage of any kind of teminal or computer terminals as tool, gadget for us in daily usage.

Nevertheless, simultaneously toward all these procedural minds, we at the same time have essentially perfectly negletable against any formalized formulated truths, as so sensibly and sensitively intuitively attending not logical, not procedural only totalized( thus not analytical ) thus necessarily very savagely primitive sensing in applying no procedural, no logical approach, in other words, so leaping illorigal mind simultaneously, and at the matter of fact, in fact, we have both cases that very procedural process attending case could attempt us into so credibly trustworthy outcome, but at the same time, at other case, almost perfectly negligence to any logically procedural process could get us so successfully into very well and the best outcome.
Additionally, to these two mutually very symmetrically and incompatible mind applicable methods, we at both cases, both so successful and unsuccsessful result and not only it but also, to each case, we'd never have any convincing ascertained reason for intepreting and explaining how we can interact with both distinct attitude, in other words we'd never have no cleaized reason, cause nor no conviction for make our mind clear.

Consequently we all are at each case, not having any statistical analyzable reason, after all anytime at each arbitrarily assesable reason could be for the present outputted, but eventually having no totalized and no systematized principle nor each occasionally attending logic nor theory could not be comprehended so actually.

With these examples, consequently we can have only each momentarily differentiated circumstance and actually to any persoal case, we only judge at each case only atbitrary judgement, though essentially we have no systematized mind's mechanical comprizable principle or so.

After all, in the end, we could get one so expedient conclusion.
That is, we are never reasoned through so rationally compreheisive principle abiding mind belief, at least at interpretably rationalized reasonable context, in other words, to any case, we only reacting each so personally distinctively working event to us, with each very temporarily momentary seen appropriately regarded assessment and grasping.
All these exmaples including our mind's substantial indentity could not be solved at least at our all convincible certain logical reason at a stretch, then eventually at each very distinctively suffered and empirically contacting circumstance, we arbitrarily have case by case differentiated expedient intepretation, only the thing could be analyzed so far.
(to be continued)

Mar. 6th.     2022