Flame.Fire.Magic.

Reflection.Water.Purification.

Substance.Earth.Burial.

Feathers.Air.Lightness.

BlueFlame.RedFlame.

HotFire.ColdFire.

BlackMagic.WhiteMagic.

MirroredReflection.InnerReflection.

ColdWater.StillWater.

BodilyPurification.SpiritualPurification.

ExanimateSubstance.ActiveSubstance.

SustainableEarth.GenerativeEarth.

MassBurial.PrematureBurial.

FloatingFeathers.BrokenWings.

WarpedAir.OminousAir.

SeeingLightness.BeingLightness.

Does it matter what I write? Or only that I write? The lines above have meaning, but who's going to make the effort to discern my meaning? Or interpret their own? I believe that because writing helps me to maintain a degree of personal equilibrium, individuals within my reach likely only care that I write; and most of these circularities don't even realize that they care. As a stabilizing force, my writing makes me somewhat easier to live with. I care about both: what I write and that I write.

The self is a circularity in that it defines and justifies its self through itself and it interprets and judges all else through its self. To justify, define or prove to one's self through oneself may be one's truth but cannot be truth because one cannot prove an argument when the premise is also the conclusion. Therefore there is no truth because one's self is both premisee and concluder, thus one's personal truth is always skewed by one's self. I believe it simpler to acknowledge the total absence of certainty thus proving the necessity of empathy and compassion, because once acknowledged, the complete lack of certainty requires one self to credit and value another self. Have I stumbled across the only logical truth applicable to all relationships and to interdependence and to progress and ultimately to the survival of Humanity? I am confident that this progression of thought has been thought before. It feels (in my limited understanding) Buddhist in nature. I suppose it is only applicable and only logical and only helpful though when it is reciprocated. And it is only truly reciprocated when one self truly does not care about the provenance of another self's truth, and when this absence of concern is also reciprocated. Each individual can hold on to that authorship, but it should not influence interactive progress. Democrats and Republicans both publicly claim to want what is best for everyone; but they do not. If they did, they would forego any personal ingrained premise and defer to expertise. The same could be said of Christians and Muslims and Atheists. If we are all in the general vicinity of each other's definition of good, why must we tie the conclusion to the premise? Why not defer to logic and reason for the implementation of good. Logic and reason is more likely to come from the objectivity of logic and reason than from the subjectivity of emotional belief. If empathy and compassion are good, why are we all so far apart? I believe it is because too many individuals are unable to offload the weighty encumbrance of circularity.

As a circularity, I care about both: what I write and that I write.