Iron clad rule: The human is that which may concept. Concept itself, may in of itself, be conceptualized. As such, what was the iron clad rule I will refer to as the Concept Principle, unfortunately abbreivating it as "CP," which will open it up to jokes about child pornography.
Concept is free insofar as we may concept that something is concept. Why can nothing go past this? It has been said that this is merely the brain game, that this is merely saying this is that, this is merely this. But on Merely itself, what stands behind merelyness? Is it not that the human may do merelyness? What is beyond merelyness? Is it not that which is merely beyond merelyness? Well, we may ascribe, that is, concept (or "conceptualize"), something. Is this not the case for our infinite potentiality? What is potentiality, other than a means of expressing the Concept Principle? I do not know what it is other than that, other than that which may be taken from/as concept. What would be expression, other than that which is of concept? I cannot move past this, as is thus the figure of our speech. As is thus, the lingual barrier contains me, and as is the lingual barrier opens us up to believing it is infinite. Indeed, what is believing, but not an expression of concept.
In a little: All of my words may be seen as "concept concept concept concept concept concept concept." The so called "true" philosopher, I so believe, so unfortunately in my eyes, and unfortunately in ways of which I wanted something else for some reason, of which I may not exactly find because I want to know why I wanted something more by virtue of a something more, cannot move past this.
The "true" philosopher is, in other terms, in other so concepts, an idealist? Is this so my proclamation? These concepts to speak of concepts, of concepts of concepts. How must it be moved past? For things come to me, and such "things" appear to be concepts. Perhaps one may swap "thing" for "concept' and vice versa.
Perhaps, I may concept the last paragraph as so, swapping a word for "concept", each punctuation point for "concept", and each space for "concept":
conceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconceptconcept
Or shall I have also included each character? Or something else? Or the concepts behind the concepts? To what end does this do anything for anyone? Is this particularly illustrative of anything, for one who already understand the so called essence of concept I have laid down, or someone else has laid down, or whatever? Phonological analysis. Morphological analysis. Syntax analysis. Whatever whatever, huh?
Why can this not be moved past? If this is the true principle, on what earth is there any point or any sense in participating in concept? Concept insofar as concept goes, or, alternatively put, as far as the CP goes, if CP in of itself is the only existence, then we may not go any further than concept! And so, what is the point of it all? What is the truth in it all? I mean, as the many philosophers and masses by now (at least by my own very nonsense token of abstraction), me included, have seemed to succumb to the CP as clear and the absolute "truth," have we lost all purpose? For, CP would seem to pervade and relativize, or otherwise one must succumb to concept-land for a time, or ever, or always are succumbing already. One must make the leap of losing the CP. One must so called "limit it." One must say, CP is "this or that," s.t. I cannot place my "this or that" as a concept inside CP's domain in of itself. A sort of transcendence, and yet, the CP bugs on you again. It is like a poison. For, it does so called "make sense" for "this or that" applied on CP to be within CP. I mean, is it CP then if it's not CP? If it's CP - {"this or that"}? And so, I am absolutely mad. Or, so they call it, ad infinitum, or some sort of infinite recursive nonsense. Dialectics? Absolutely mad. I continue to function as though CP is not exactly CP, at the very least insofar where it does not apply formally in analysis. Indeed, I am always limiting CP by virtue of innumerable things. CP is silenced and muddied about for whatever purpose, such expression meaning one's being in concept-land, or perhaps Samsara, or some other manner of expression. ORRRR! You are merely applying a universal rule as though it is actually universal, and so it cannot actually be Ad Infinitum! ORRRR what I just described is the exact same thing you are describing, Mr. Critic! Oh, it's all a matter of description! Oh! Abstractions, hurt me! But what is stopping abstraction?
Oh, and so the absolute truth! CP is CP, and CP is CP, and CP is CP! And, CP, must be CP! And, so, CP is CP! And, CP! CP! That must mean CP is not CP! And CP is CP! And not! CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP! FUCK!
What was the point in my life? The reason. Why must we seek a reason? Well, I can give you a reason I suppose. Is it all tautology, then?
As you can see, CP owns me. CP destroys. CP creates. It is all utter nonsense. Is CP God? Perhaps? Perhaps not? Oh, as the annoying enlighmentment poets would write about this, oh oh man's infinite being! Oh! Look at this particular expression of mine! Particular expression! Particular expression!
Oh! Look at how I, the so called philosopher, can escalate abstractions! Oh, look how I have traced my way to CP from concept-land! Oh! Oh! Unending unendings! Look at how I talk about it within concept-land! Does this scaffolding bind CP now to concept-land? Is CP now not CP, because I have formed a concept which tells me of some concept to which CP can attach to and stay so? Oh! Fuck me! Perhaps I ought to quit and go play Minecraft? Or make some money? A family? Look at how concept-land oh so impresses on me. Oh, look at how the enlightened (Buddhists/etc), perhaps "true" CP bearers, still are in concept-land, for CP must have CP, CP must have concept-land as concept, and yet they are not in concept-land, etc....! Look at how they speak of paradox. Look! Look, damn you! Look at how they say it. They are speaking. They are expressing. They provide dogma of non-dogma, and so on ad cockinatum!
But I thought the fundamental truth was that there was no fundamental truth! Oh, but is that not a fundamental truth? Is that not which drives me to locate the fundamental truth? Oh, Hegel, is it just the next one in your line? Is that even what you said? Does that even matter? What a sad sad orifice. How anyone acquainted with CP has said anything is a miracle, and yet, look at me!
Oh, and they will speak of me in their orifices. Can somebody help? Or must I orificize myself!? Fuck off! Substitute orifice with edifice. Particular expression!
How wise he is, in his king of all abstractions, says an abstraction concept. Was it mocking? Why mock? Well, one may mock everything, says CP! Yet, one may see everything, says CP!
And so I may simply kill myself. Thus spoke Knee-chimpanzee.