You are talking ideality while constructing ideality on the ideality of ideality. I could construct this farther, but the ideality of ideality of ideality, reduces to the ideality of ideality, itself solely an ideality of sorts. If you want to talk about ideality, you may as well construct ideality on the ideality of materiality.
Now this sounds non-sensical, if it weren’t that you were already acquainted with everything I’ve just introduced. You breathe ideality every day; every thought, every idea, every emotion, every sense, every perception. You breathe materiality every day, that thing out there, you can call a real world, but how well can you know it? You sense it, you perceive it, but that’s just ideality, an ideality of materiality.
So, if you are talking about philosophy, while frenziedly speculating about the perception of another, you are in doing so, traveling through your philosophy, ideas, perception, and matter at hand; only to then repeat the process all over again: this time now through theirs. All this while you are attempting to derive the contextually correct interpretation of a text.
Yet in this very moment you are philosophizing. That is, you are engaging in philosophy by the only means through which one may engage in philosophy. You are talking ideality while constructing ideality. So then, what are you constructing, where does it return?
You state your conclusion, and then attempt to extricate it from your own bias, but the conclusion is exactly your bias, and your acknowledgement both an endorsement and a refutation. If you hold your conclusion to be objective truth, then what bias is there to extricate it from? If you hold your conclusion to be a subjective truth, then why the attempt to cleave from it bias? Running down this middle way, you do not find a well cobbled path, but the crumbling bricks from above. That’s where it returns.
If you are attempting to interpret, you can do nothing but interpret, the paradox being, this interpretation is then dependent on your own context. Your own eventual materiality; pointed to by layers of ideality. My question is then: why are you adding further to your layers of ideality? You are philosophizing on interpretation, with the nasty side-effect of ideality brought forth. Once it envelopes, confining.
Your interpretation of the interpretation of the matter at hand, yours and the authors, are now chained together. It reeks of madness and detachment. You were better off speaking perception, not interpretation: not what ought to be your perception, or aught to be the perception of the author. Surely you’ve been taught how to read allegorically. Speak of the perceived matter at hand, so your reader, may too perceive the matter at hand. Do you refuse to see your perception as capable of anything beyond trivialities, or do you direct that humiliation at the reader?
Even worse, I lament, you may have truly lost it. Lost sight of anything at all. Found yourself truly somewhere lost within ideality. Truly in pure ideality, if there was ever such a thing, that ideality of ideality: Ideality off lost in illusion. Your coins are one-sided, you answer your phone twice a day, you know your name, and there are apomorphisms writhing under your skin. Your signs have broken, now look at them. You find them pointing nowhere, now panic. The signs were pointing to each other a moment ago. How can they point nowhere? Isn’t this precisely somewhere, the place where the signs are? But where are they pointing? Nowhere. Are you reading allegorically yet? ^_^
Ideality inextricable from materiality, in its failure to resolve, seeks self-reference, itself a distinct resolution. The distinct resolution, pure illusion, remains another far away idea. Illusion, unable to be grasped, inextricable from ideality. Yet, unlike the atoms of ideality, interlocking into towering forms, the atoms of illusion, explode into further atomicity, obscuring everything. They are self-referentially pointing somewhere, but this somewhere is nowhere. They may as well be pointing everywhere. The illusion of illusion is a hell I know. Therefore, synthesized, when perceived again, the ideality of illusion, now obscures in totality, as delusional.
The ideality of illusion as materiality, the ideality of materiality as illusion, the ideality of why not synthesize it again, maybe you’ll hit something in finality.
Breathing in you inhale one pure gas, breathing out you exhale another pure gas. Another can arrest the breathing entirely, more co-occur with diverse effect. This purity illusionary. Is there meaning in this?
Absurdity prefaced, you can’t grasp pure illusion either, it is expressed again, as ideality. Yet it is an ideality, that points to an ideality, that has become disconnected from materiality, that has become sanctified in attempting to divorce presupposition and context. The inseparability of three principles revealing a fourth. You may as well go back to the first. The matter at hand is inextricable from its relation to you. The matter at hand is inextricable. The text at hand is inextricable. You at hand are inextricable. Immersed in the state of the affairs of the world. Are you reading allegorically yet? ^_^
That is not to say, that there is no merit in the analysis of context, but rather that the context becomes another far away idea, if it cannot be related back to the matter at hand.