II: Let's Get Started.

A. For any given System there is a Necessity of Error in perspective and illusion in so far that Error as that root capacity inherently existing as Root Systematic Nature, constitutes that which is unknown on the one hand, yet must be initially observed, understood or transformed by our roles as outsiders looking in, on the other.

Error, far from a fearful quantity, in any given system, is necessary and constant because what is unknown, in the widest possible sense will always be an unavoidable occurrence of integration constancy.

In terms of Subject then, we can now say that as a capacity, Subject is that which, from our vantage point, constitutes itself as a variable integration of root and counter root occurrence.

In this sense, I am arguing that knowledge is only a system of recorded experience integrated with behavior as thought. I don't believe knowledge is a capacity. Rather, I argue, that as a record of experience, heuristically integrated by the Constancy of Occurrence of either Subject capacity or Object quantity, knowledge is probable.

In other words for example that which we may call knowledge is not part of human necessity in terms of our understanding of human systems pe se. Since not all human beings define knowledge in precisely the same way, Knowledge remains a probability.

Before I get too far ahead of my line of reasoning the element of Root Systematic Nature, essential in all systems as initial capacity is the Subject: that is, if we do indeed accept the premise that there is a Necessity of Error in perspective and illusion particularly in how we view that which we call life or art as Friedrich Nietzsche argued in The Birth of Tragedy.

Nietzsche, of course suggested the need for a system of counter aesthetic re-ordering of our basic understanding of quantity and capacity as root elements of general condition.

Thus, the Subject is that which although unknown, is, nonetheless that which we as outside observers, may conclude exists as an initial and singular capacity and thereby, necessary.

In other words, in any given system, the Subject is Necessary, regardless of whether or not we can "understand" precisely what its particular Root Systematic Nature is or is not. In any given system there exists a specific Root System which retains its singularity regardless of General circumstantial occurrence or Least Common Specific Result of integration.

On the other hand, Object is that which is constructed from that which is Necessary. Object is thus, probable because in any given system, its inherent nature changes from General Circumstance to Specific Integration, whereas, that which is Subject does not.

For example, most of us may already believe this, but let's say that not all human beings define knowledge in the same way.

Since we have already implied that which is Necessary, is, by definition, that which is constant, we can now add that which is Probable is that which is constructed from that which, although mutable, is by definition, constituted as either a joint, direct or inverse quantity of Root Systemic Nature.

Thus, Object is that quantity which is constructed from that which depends on neither joint, direct or inverse integration to substantiate itself as an element of Specific Condition. More importantly, Object as an element of General Condition, instead, is the foundation of the symbolic record of experience more commonly known as Systematic Knowledge.

What we have so far then is: The Subject, Systemic Nature, is necessary.
Object, that which is constructed from systemic
nature: that which is constructed from subject: that
which is Systematic Knowledge, is
probable.

And there is the Constancy of Occurrence of either in joint, direct or inverse relation to the other relative to the Greatest Common General Circumstance of
subject or object occurrence to the Least Common Individual Result of Subject and Object Integration.

That's enough for now. I will discuss the Constancy of Occurrence in more detail in a future post particularly in terms of experience, behavior and thought.

Tom