terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - Anguearc.txt ? For example, while their mere labeling as that which is most fundamental without getting at the nature of what is fundamental is insufficient to the question of their nature (whether in general or as fundamentals), this conception of the fundamental can lead to an investigation of all that appears contained within it and their interrelations, rather than just as a given not worth investigating. ? That is, an understanding of this fundamental as a fundamental is not to presume to understand it anymore than one could presume that by seeing or understanding one structural component of a structure that they could even know or see what all the structure is comprised of and how. ? Often these may dovetail with the increasing and inherently myopic and distortive restrictiveness of retro-orthodoxy. ? It is ironically this same general folly of an iron fist of culture that that which could once be a life-defining investigation may pass into a given whose validity as is (often distortedly) handed down is demanded blind loyalty to, if for little reason other than expediency. ? Moreover, the plurality of answers to questions on core concepts such as being does not equate to the absence of one, nor the potential for any answer to be widely disseminated and take root among masses, especially considering this would beg the question of why, how, and to what effect this was achieved at different times and places (if it even was at all as the seeker may believe). ? After all, matters such as ontology deal directly with the nature of being, and it is thus riskily lofty to assume that the nature of being itself must be contended with first before the first known conceptions of ontology are grappled with, an assumption that implies this task could not essentially itself count as a form of not only ontology but, it is presumed, an ontology as foundational as that of the first known ontology. ? Indeed we are confronted with the issue of mortal limit and expediency in deciding when, why, and how to reinvestigate the question of a core matter, and this in itself can lead to a series of inherited givens concerning the supposed superfluity of the question. ? Failure to recognize this can lead to the foregoing of dialectic and proper interfacing with beings at large in favor of a deluded messianic attempt to leverage of an answer against them out of the myopic belief that they already, whether collectively or individually, lack it. ? After all, while it is prudent to question presuppositions on which commonly held and propagated notions (especially those concerning matters as fundamental as being itself) rest, to merely grapple with them is not to escape their natural limit qua supposition. ? It is especially riskily lofty when this project itself uses such first known conceptions of ontology as references or points of reaction, effectively making them foundations for an imagined foundation, while trusting that their supposedly limited nature does not thereby influence and possibly distort the clarity and accuracy of the project. ? A potential danger in looking for conceptions of core matters such as being is in seeking only for those loftiest and most rigorous (particularly according to culturally inherited standards) conceptions (often themselves neglected in their time, such that a potential parallel in the present could not necessarily be appreciated as such by the seeker in time even if the seeker could become aware of its existence) passed down by the canon legitimate institutions of the society in which the seeker finds themselves, especially without consulting beings at large and the conditions which would appear to lead to one conception's propagation and the other's neglect or silencing.