terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - Endistan.txt ? The mere meditation upon these now considered “dead simple” principles as though in a mantra could further connect one to the reach of their truth and their application in various things not normally consciously recognized. ? Another question also arises concerning the distinction of concepts as are used in similar fashion across these different notable historical conceptions of principles, such as causes from reasoning as well as effects from principles. ? We are yet further driven to the question regarding the reasoning for a thing whether such thing could truly be if not for such reasons or causes, though this is not accounting for the ways in which mere statistics or likelihood could be sufficient explanation for a cause or thing, and the many factors in a conclusion we may not perceive. ? What’s clear enough at this point in the process is the unity of things not merely in their relative disunity in the process of their discovery, but also in their always having reason itself underlying them, in whatever form it takes among each. ? This is supported also by the discovering of all the different ways historically that such a principle was arrived at, expressed, and acted upon to various fruitful results as we also may take for granted today in their contributions to present conditions. ? This is made more difficult in part by the fact that even perhaps the brightest luminaries who carried such truths did not possess the resources or foresight to even see the necessity of their preservation, or simply that the dilemma of contextual disconnection would make any such preservation inscrutable to us or anyone else in a different context. ? The dilemma of arriving at the nature of rooty principles or cognitive contributors thereto depends in part on tracing and determining, even by pure inner faculties as though uninhibited by the mentally-influencing conditions subsequent to (if not directly resulting from) those same thoughtseeds, the context and thoughtforms in which such principles were first conceived of. ? At the same time, these same principles may in fact be “known” today but rather not fully grasped in all their magnitude and ramifications as would happen upon their first discovery, and not feeding warmed-over thought food from yore in a vague category or “given”. ? It is even in part by this very principle that such forms can be recognized as being discoverable, let alone as which ones they are. ? Yet it is ironically in part this very naïveté or pure connection to things which may have allowed growth of the conception of universal (at least as we can yet conceive of it) principles in question in the first place, and which knowledge thereof may yet inhibit us from rediscovery of that very principle even as it has helped furnish present conditions that we may take for granted. ? The question becomes how widely, divergently, and lengthily the chain of truth and cause can and should be followed, let alone the accuracy of such tracing, given mortal and (often as a result) logistical limits. ? It is also by tracing this chain of reasoning both universally and socially throughout now retrospectively clear movements of history that processes in both individual and trending collective thoughtforms among beings towards the vale of truth may be got at and understood, such as in thought movements even now revealed as "wrong" or "obsolete" yet which for such role warrant gratitude.