In frank, world in which authors try to describe through sentences made by them are intrinsically another things toward what world by itself could be, necessarily.

Because one claim is what we made which signifies our concluding truth at some interpreting. Nevertheless, described them are never extrinsically different from world itself necessarily.

Originally, how could we regard world by itself so minutely?

Otherwise, otherwise, we'd have some doubt to what any our conceivable questionable propositional mind

we could take so truly effectively trustworthy or significantly believable.

Because to us, world thing must not be so easily grasped through so rationalized brief or kind of ideally summarized interpreted idea for enlightening our mind  so smartly, we'd see it so, too.

If these world's meaning could be taken so universal for us all, that idea must be so absurd conceit or kind of misunderstanding.

If we could see that "world" seen universally by our reason so absolutely universal, that'd be so procrastinating stance. Because originally, identity we regard through our noticing world is from the beginning the matter which we take ordinarily out of control to us, and any other thing must never be called "world".

In other words, from the beginning we have started at that detached abandonment. With that absolute premise, we human beings have built and concreted theories, and formulated many hypothesises.

All these evidential schemed fixed ideas ordinarily must have been already constructed through certain logics.

In other words, to us, all our trials and exercises or so must have been given one so simply credible basic premise or otherwise, merely focused seen publicly seen worthwhile principle.

Though, what is originally absolutely trustworthy to us as assimilated with seen certain "world"?

At least, world thing must be premised that it'd be interpreted or analyzed through only expedidntly comprehensive grasp and plenary credibly seen consensus, as what to any of us must never be outputted so absolutely credible only in private mind(that does never mean that our privacy means less), in other words, we'd never easily cover world's essence so perfectly. Probably in fact, both intrinsically and extrinsically.

Because merely, definition makes us errors and only dogmatized makeshift completion either.

Because what we analyze the world with these exampled each arbitrary duality is basically indicative to our mind that we could merely evidence our mind's incomplition around execution only with a single stroke of sword through our perfect dominance for covering our following object, probably not only world itself

but also each precisely analyzed small element.

Simply, we'd say that describing each necessary truth for us through sentences must comply with our congenitally provided our constantly capable limitations, therefore rather we positively could have cocept "world".

In other words, metaphorically indispensable concept or notion "world" for us must be prepared for our significantly earnest conceivable mind for building up our necessary consensus for doing everything.

Though to us, sentences things for indicating world's appearance means so much to us as our mutual consent or premised agreement for executing our own incomplition which only depends on small view to the world.

Yes, "world" is constantly beside our so powerless ability and sturdiness for covering all beings at a stretch by personally and publicly as long as we'd be concerned with.

(Irregularly continued)

Sep. 6th.  2022