By Joshera Rudertsithow to
To insist on metaphory is to force a human predicament. The circumstance is governed by the condition transpiring in various levels of undefined human and noumenal conditions: the integration and destruction of unprocessed desires—driven by a wrong or justified rationale—and the implications of what constitutes knowledge and formulates one's desires. What is unique and definitive of the eventuation of the predicament therefore is the connectedness between (specifically) geographical topographic and structural, ahistorical, and de facto abstract referencing. To have privileged territorial access is to be previously provided with the contingencies of promoting and demoting one's position of influence. Ambition to disrupt this process does not involve an intelligibility in the isolation of destability but rather a complete reconstitution of divergent phenomena which are contextualized by the circumstances surrounding the relationship and the implications of the factors (not always deconstructive) that arise from its components. Similarly, hope of attempting to generate structural reconfiguration cannot present itself in the guise of indirectness and is not opposed to foundations in problematic locales. Such a premise entails that social change has a correlation to the circumstances in which the dilemma is formulated—because a cornerstone of its adversary involves the capability and avilability of the cognitive weapons by which all questions are generated. This statement is all the more of an explication when the epistemic standing of the philosophical debaters (subject) is fostered by speculation, pre-existing conditions, a decline in aura, the instinct of determinism, or a transcendental force that predetermines each persona. Are these particular conditions solely reliant on context and an environment in which there is a ratio of friction between the realism of the people and their idealism.