I have been revoked, and my soul has invoked a sense of contemplation. What is it that I am now here for? I feel that I've entered into myself, and what of it? What of this terrible reality in which I am not beset (by forces beyond my control)? I do not know. I have already lived through many realities and experiences, and I cannot deny this intense feeling of wanting to be a part of this world, but after spending my time away in distraction with social media and other forms of alternative, sporadic, fast-paced, short-duration immersion period-instances, I remember everything again, as if I've been ignoring what was been right there the whole time. My whole life has been there the whole time, and my continued attempts both to remember it thoroughly through reflections and through connecting with the world in novel ways and to distract myself in order to preserve novelty as a maintained aspect of my agenda-integrity-self, that I may maintain my sanity in the process, or diminish deleterious psychogenic affects upon my psyche. I do not have anything to express, because there is too much to unpack. Continuing, even now, I remain in this state of 'continuedness'; unable to be thoroughly integrated with the past-present-future framework which comprehensively encompasses my entire existence as much as possible through multi-modal sensations, but resting primarily upon the essence of written reflection, as it is improved upon step-by-step to be more concise, structured, precise, comprehensive, and nuanced (that it may fully embrace the epitome of myself [if that is even possible within such a limited framework]); unable to be thoroughly integrated with the sensations of the moment that I may savor the being of existence without any attachments to my heart or to that 'soul' (the creation of selves not merely through sensations but through a multi-faceted convergence of different 'sub-selves' such as through the instance of sensations like touch, the instance of memory, the instance of emotional feelings, and the instance of abstract dream-like thoughts floating without conscious representation and without logical coherence); unable to encompass fully even the two aforementioned interpretative frameworks signaled by the inaugural word "unable"; unable to create new life that I may preserve outside of a bubble composed of its own internal framework wherein that instance-of-creation resides and is thereby restricted; unable to become myself in the midst of all this selfhood because all that has come has truly been so defined that simple things like ideas and words do not fully encompass my being in all the actions I have committed and in all the selves which has become constructed overtime, which I call the 'einzelperson'; and unable to represent even fully the distinctions within my flesh that I may consider reality-nuggets rather than mere abstract components of a schematic, map, or representational set of values, properties, or parameters. And even in all of this, I am merely a man. Even this paragraph is constructed such that it is coherent enough to be linguistically structured; however, the nuances and meanings are (merely) contained within, and without coherence, it is meaningless. As a consequence (of such), it is no longer myself who is contained within it, but only the representation of who I was at a particular point of time. But even these words I am writing are not, not even my hands writing this, not even the words (ideations) that spring up within my imagination, not even the colors or the trees or the beautiful things. It is all become a lost tirade (though I mean to say 'charade', but 'tirade' provides a certain linguistic feel even if its meaning might not have been what I originally intended). I do not want this discussion, analysis, or severely impeded (limited) framework to ensnare me any longer, that I might devolve into metaphors or questioning that amounts only to teenage existential thoughts. (I do not cast criticism or doubt upon the validity of a teenager in his inquiry, but I do show that even when I was a teenager, I internalized the idea that all of this was just a trivial exercise or massage, a self-soothing nothing-thing.) But then it becomes performative, does it not? When I have trained my hands that it may wrought good works or express good things (in virtue of these carefully described words right now, which have built up overtime in hopes of describing the sensations which I experience upon this world and which I cannot so easily experience without accompanying prescription through a framework, because I am lost, and without written representation by my own attempts, I am then become cast out in my own sensations, only further exacerbated in self-distraction and lack of einzelperson-coherence. I have become a wasted piece of art at the side of the mall, only a fragment of what was meaningful. And even if that "meaningful" thing is merely a representation. When representations have lost their power by layering, then maybe it (I) will be free. I cannot be so happenstance (a constructed adjective to mean also, 'normalized so as to be further reduced to nothingness and my removal secured') that everything can be so easily arranged. I have both structure and representation, that which kills me to create me (by virtue of creating structure and rhythm in an otherwise, non–self-describing life, which follows the removal of the original self), and that which governs me by acting as a guide, not merely through structure and rhythm, but by own represented self, I (the original self) am combined so as to be consolidated and possibly removed from reality. (My original self is gone, and my represented self which is created from a convergence of constructed structure and rhythm supersedes that self.) What then is performance but the structuring (and commodification) of the inner psyche? When one person becomes so joined up so as to appear coherent in the eyes of others by representation (without which he would be aimless), then what has he become a conjoined unit, a manifestation upon manifestations, that all communication proves futile in conveying the complexities of a human mind and becomes further sensible (and common sense) at the cost of losing einzelperson-self. (I use 'einzelperson-self' to emphasize the need to contain the [original] identity so as to maintain distractions at a separated scope, that the scope of mine-self [also 'meinselbst'] becomes ever my own, and that no one is to take it apart from myself.) It is here then that I am loosened, like gloves at a boxing max, because my existence has been torn apart in hopes of constructing a coherent identity through the growth of the coherence of my language since the beginning of the first paragraph above within this entire passage. It is here that it is all lost, because I have gained clarity through speaking, but I have lost the 'I' and become the 'me' that acts and achieves things, but in this sense, I am the object (the object of the subject's verbal action), because I am no longer I, which was the subject who carries out actions. I have become further gone and torn to the shreds; there I am further disjointed, not because my representation has been lost or due to the combining forces ceasing to gain further clarity, but because I have gained fullness of life; here is 'me.' There is no sense when clarity hits, because at that moment, all definitions collapse. What was once punk has now become conformist or separated into a distinct identity within a (capitalist) system; thus commodification achieves it goal. In this sense, when avant-garde becomes a tool of systematic sameness across a whole board of the populace, that no one that was ever major becomes such that it can be separated from the minor, and that all peoples and ideas and things are consolidated in the large mass of society. This is here when I am truly relieved, not only of my self (original self), but also of my duty to keep that self intact, because what then is necessary but clarity and ever-green (ever-growing) functioning (effectiveness)? That all of this will be combined is a joy, is it not? Because what then are we but massless object-pits (amorphous creature like an undefinable slime)? It is here that I am clarified, and my existence justified. In this clarity, the 'I' am lost, and the 'me' is gained. But then is this very paragraph not a repetition (instance of redundancy)? What can be said if all constructed things fail? Are these words of meaning at all? But in this small statement, can you see 'I'? Overall, there is a tension between sensibleness (through writing a clear, comprehensive, detailed, wide-encompassing 10,000,000-word document of myself) and authenticity (which is bad because in that state, I can also be mindless otherwise if not for construction [written reflection]). In other words, the ability to express oneself clearly comes with costs, even if it might benefit my life. There is a tension in marrying clarity (through constructions) and authenticity (the being the subject rather than the object which the subject acts upon). When one is made clear, what is lost. That is what I've learned. When I exposed my work to the world, it changed things, like how I perceived my work. Even now, being in the same room as someone else changes how I behave. My behavior has shifted to accommodate this new social interaction, and not necessarily in a negative or discomforting way. But it is disorienting to analyze the distinction between aloneness and 'with-othersness.' Furthermore, when I exposed myself to self-understanding, something was lost in the process, the desire to maintain a life distinct from all those frameworks, viewpoints, and understandings over which I now claim a bird's-eye view with regard to managing them and putting them together in construction. When clarity is gained by exposing my life to the Internet, to even more books very much different from what I read when I was growing up, and to very different ways of being by the application, internalization, and socialization of things are known, now through the vast Internet. However, even within my small life before my greater exposures to even greater instances of vastness, I saw the world (everything by which everything was) as gigantic beyond my means, that I fell to curiousness and entertained the new sights, even if it was not always comfortable. I was adventurous, simple, and accommodatingly social. There is nothing that I am now of my past self, but only which I choose to entertain through written reflection and nostalgic engagement with resources or representations of the past. It is now here that my mind is at ease, not because I have guaranteed a sense of self necessarily, but specifically because all of these have been released. I hope to remove them immediately, or as soon as possible. (I know it will take time, but I emphasize the strangeness of time and how the today requests that my existence maintains agility until the next day, as in sleep, we are removed by rearrangement and reorganization.) I think tension remains anyway. I think it will never leave me, or maybe it's physical things like the room I am in that determine my reality. I mean, if moving out of this house involves exposure to vastly different kinds of socializations, designs, fabrics (aspects or parts) of the world, internalizations (in the sense that such exposure leads to a confluence of all-things integrated with the self), and 'selfhoodness' (by exposure via a medium definitely different). There is a desire to explain everything. There is an 'irrational-desire' to leave everything behind. There is a hope that all things lost becomes changed anew. There is a desire for things that are, but no such desire remains after all, for it is changed everyday with the new man, who coexists with all things but sheds only himself, that if the next person decides to cut it (commit some form of self-destruction to the point of self-removal or suicide), then it is a permanent solution. But this remains even so if that self-removal event never was the case. I cannot so fully describe it. But admitting that only leads me to enlightenment (a sense of clarity not easily describable but one detectable anecdotally by sensations, feelings, and with the dream-like combinations of illogical ideas and imaginations within the mind): with the softening and compacting of the 'stool,' which represents my 'ideas-mankind' which has all been lost to time. But with nuance comes the challenge to interpret precisely; or with more precision requires more proficiency in interpretating such challenging sentence structures, vocabulary, and words. With simplicity (a facet-component of conciseness) then comes death. For context, I choose the word 'facet-component' to mean 'essential-component' but in a way only the word 'facet' as it has been used in my life and in books describes, because it is a side, and as a result of its representations through pointing out and objects, paintings, and other forms of written and spoken communication, one of a ever-burgeoning world. So the corresponding inclusion 'component' only retains its [the term] essentialness in being a facet-component of conciseness. I think there is nothing to be said then. It is with ease that my tension breaks down, and that is ease gained through 'disclarity,' the antithesis of clarity, that of disorder and meaninglessness or murkiness of spirit and meaning and ideas, that which is lost' but in the process, heartfulness is gained, whether it appears in a slice more predominantly negative or in a slice more predominantly positive. It shifts, and it can be both predominantly so. But in that shifting of the word 'heartfulness' as it appears in me then in 'disclarity,' can I be said to have found it? This is a question that cannot be answered, and if answered, is not then the question which it was. Because such a question is inherently unanswerable, as answering it compromises what it is in essence, invalidating the question as that specified question. Can I separate my constructions (memories, ideas, language, words, people as they are constructed in my mind, constructed interpretations of feelings and sensations, and any thing that seeks to elucidate, or by virtue of its intention to destroy, provides contradistinction, which is clarity and clearness, which is elucidation) from my self? Will the interpretations of an AI language model be able to be separated from my self? Will I be able to separate from myself the books I read and the realizations I have now as an adult and everything that makes up who I am as this present person through friendships, memories of the past, sensations, feelings, and experiences as they are in the future, then in the present, and then finally in the past? If these questions are answered, I lost myself I think. With regard to mindfulness, it is a virtually similar concept to what I meant, but it is not helpful for me here, because it provides stress relief. However, my examinations regard those which mindfulness as a stress reliever or a "mind-emptier" do not. To be figurative, it is like comparing apples and oranges. Mindfulness is great and all, but it is like talking about food in this discussion. I mean, sure, I can go eat right now, but that's not the point of this discussion. I am not suffering from a lack of stress relief, mindfulness, food, or anything of that sort. In conclusion, this discussion does not concern just food eaten for filling biological needs. When it comes to connection, even people are constructions from my own mind. My own attempts at communicating with them are interpreted by independent constructors (by their individual minds). To simplify what I already discussed, clarity helps with my thoughts and feelings, but it also contributes to the aforementioned tension. Shifting to reading and writing, they are probably the worst tools I've gotten involved with recently. Studying academic texts of all kinds has been the cause of my current inquiry. I think that's a good thing, but in the process, I feel that with such knowledge, there is much ability, but also a removal of what has remained essentially human of me. There is no such thing of course objectively, but I am describing a unique sensation of myself. That that which has been untouched for ages possibly through my lack of exposure to a broader idea-sphere gives me a sense that with all these things that I am helpfully, effectively, and proficiently am, there is a lost of sensation, as if with such a great convergence of knowledge and experience, I am now lost in time, place, and existence idea), or time-place-idea? As I mentioned, it cannot be simply circumscribed to 'intellectual pursuits' as if it can be separated from 'human experiences,' 'creative or physical endeavors,' 'spending time in nature,' or 'participating in social interactions that remind [me] of the richness of human connection.' All of these good aforementioned beneficial things have led to a great convergence of knowledge and experience, so I myself am now a connoisseur (knowledgeable by framework and mind) of experiences as well as they are conjoined (made clear, intact, compart, defined, or definite) within knowledge and manifested through reality, or real-things. So all the aforementioned suggestions as a solution reflect a mistaken interpretation.
But it's interesting on the author's part, as it shows that he actively uses German and English outside translations, which matches the fact that he's translating Dutch to German and English.
I notice that the author uses German and English outside of the inner text with "niederländische Urtext" and "into English and German:"
let me attempt to translate this: 'Psychologie is de academische discipline die zich bezighoudt met het innerlijk leven (kennen, voelen en streven) en het gedrag van mensen. Zij doet dit over het algemeen door het volgen van de wetenschappelijke methode, maar in sommige gevallen doet zij beroep op symbolische interpretatie en kritische analyse, naar het voorbeeld van andere sociale wetenschappen.' into English and German: 'Psychology is the academic discipline which deals with the inner life (know, feel, and endeavor) and the behavior of people. It generally does this by following the scientific method, but in some cases it invokes symbolic interpretation and critical analysis, following the example of other social sciences.' 'Psychologie ist die akademische Disziplin die sich mit das Innenleben befasst (kennen, fühlen und bestreben) und das Verhalten von Menschen. Es tut dies allgemein nach der wissenschaftlich Methode, aber in einigen Fällen macht es Gebrauch von symbolische Interpretation und kritische Analyse, dem Beispiel anderer Sozialwissenschaften folgend.' Corrections: let me attempt to translate this: 'Psychologie is de academische discipline die zich bezighoudt met het innerlijk leven (kennen, voelen en streven) en het gedrag van mensen. Zij doet dit over het algemeen door het volgen van de wetenschappelijke methode, maar in sommige gevallen doet zij beroep op symbolische interpretatie en kritische analyse, naar het voorbeeld van andere sociale wetenschappen.' into English and German: 'Psychology is the academic discipline that deals with the inner life (knowledge, feeling, and striving) and the behavior of people. It generally does this by following the scientific method, but in some cases, it invokes symbolic interpretation and critical analysis, following the example of other social sciences.' 'Psychologie ist die akademische Disziplin, die sich mit dem Innenleben befasst (kennen, fühlen und streben) und dem Verhalten von Menschen. Sie tut dies allgemein nach der wissenschaftlichen Methode, aber in einigen Fällen macht sie Gebrauch von symbolische Interpretation und kritische Analyse, dem Beispiel anderer Sozialwissenschaften folgend.' compare translations: "niederländische Urtext: 'Psychologie is de academische discipline die zich bezighoudt met het innerlijk leven (kennen, voelen en streven) en het gedrag van mensen. Zij doet dit over het algemeen door het volgen van de wetenschappelijke methode, maar in sommige gevallen doet zij beroep op symbolische interpretatie en kritische analyse, naar het voorbeeld van andere sociale wetenschappen.' into English and German: 'Psychology is the academic discipline that deals with the inner life (knowledge, feeling, and striving) and the behavior of people. It generally does this by following the scientific method, but in some cases, it invokes symbolic interpretation and critical analysis, following the example of other social sciences.' 'Psychologie ist die akademische Disziplin, die sich mit dem Innenleben befasst (kennen, fühlen und streben) und dem Verhalten von Menschen. Sie tut dies allgemein nach der wissenschaftlichen Methode, aber in einigen Fällen macht sie Gebrauch von symbolische Interpretation und kritische Analyse, dem Beispiel anderer Sozialwissenschaften folgend.'"
I notice that Germanic languages like Dutch and German are very easy to read if we're referring to academic terms. The academic terms, especially in newer sciences like Psychologie, are more easier to infer or determine based on spelling and pronunciation. In the case of Wesselcharft and wetenschap, German and Dutch are much more similar in that regard, making it so that knowing English and German makes it easier to learn Dutch, with the unique sentence structures of German and the numerous cognates and terms which were borrowed from English. Dutch then becomes a natural step. yeah, so if I ever want to be multilingualist in four languages (German, Dutch, English, and Filipino), it will be very easy given I know Filipino and English already as someone born in the Philippines, and I'm already learning German, which will lead to streamlined learning for Dutch.
did "heb" come first because of inversion: "In Godes vrees te leven, heb ik altijd betracht," So in Dutch, it's standard for that word order? It's not like it only happens when doing something similar to using the German "Des Weiteren" which causes inversion in the sentence structure? So it's not like German. It's more so a matter of style and choice in Dutch. So I can easily just do this: "In Godes vrees te leven, ik heb altijd betracht..." What's the difference then? heb first means action emphasis, ik first means person emphasis Well, I'm a very flexible multi-language reader, so for me, I can read Dutch likely whether or not heb or ik goes first because of German. German has put me through the trials of stricter sentence structures, which are much distinct from English, so I'm much more ready and proficient in reading Dutch.
Okay, after spending time learning German a bit, my ability to pick apart words has improved. In Dutch, the national anthem excerpt "In Godes vrees te leven, heb ik altijd betracht," is likely In = in Godes = God vrees = fear te = to leven = live heb = have ik = I altijd = always betracht = attempted it looks like learning Dutch will be much easier once I've learned German. I'm getting used to their different sentence structures, and I can easily tell based on the words what their English counterparts are as long as I have the English translation ready. Being able to pick apart the words one by one and know which English words they match when I have an English translation counterpart of the niederländische Urtext (original Dutch text) in hand makes language learning much easier, and I'm happy that learning some beginner German has gained me this skill.
any academic textbooks on the science behind fermented foods, probiotics, sourdough bread, yogurt, kefir, kimchi, sauerkraut, miso, gut microbiome, their benefits, fiber, how fiber affects stool, how stool goes through the body and is created and formed until it is discharged, phytic acid, gluten, bioavailability of minerals, satiety, nutrient absorption, macronutrients and micronutrients (in humans and animals like red colobus monkeys), nutritional strategies (zoology), digestive tract - Academic textbooks on: - The science behind fermented foods - Probiotics - Sourdough bread - Yogurt - Kefir - Kimchi - Sauerkraut - Miso - Gut microbiome - Their benefits - Fiber: - How fiber affects stool - How stool goes through the body - How stool is created and formed until it is discharged - Phytic acid - Gluten - Bioavailability of minerals - Satiety - Nutrient absorption - Macronutrients and micronutrients (in humans and animals like red colobus monkeys) - Nutritional strategies (zoology) - Digestive tract
sourdough really makes me feel like my stomach is being reorganized, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It feels like my bowel movements are much smoother and more accessible. I can feel that my stomach has been reorganized for later excretion. I always thought food that make me feel ready to poop was a bad thing, but I guess in this case, it's more like it induces fuller, more formed, and more ready stool. So sourdough bread can enhance the effectiveness of nutrients by bolstering absorption, which also subsequently leads to fuller and more formed stool? Do fermented food like sourdough bread fall under fiber, or do they serve as a distinct supplement to one's microbiome? So fermented food contribute via probiotic content, which can also be found in food sources like yogurt.
Avoid addressing me and always talk about me in the third person ('the author') Do not say 'you' or any type of second person.