step out, show me whatchu all about

another idea. i sit and i work on my thoughts about epistemology, and as is my nature, i stop every once in a while and think, i dont really agree with any of the customs or methods around this. part of what im seeing as what i want to work on is the connection between analytic and continental philosophy, and i think i may have just hit something hard in the ground. see, when i sit there thinking and then realize there are other more socially acceptable 'goods' that i could be doing for people, i remind myself of my shallow agreement with the existentialists, in as much as i know them. the idea had been circling in my head and i think that i heard perry talking about heidegger who was real close, though i think he was too opposed to analytic philosophy, to this idea. we all know the philosophical absurdity of life, if we do not know it by that name; we step back from our serious and involved lives and reflect, and cannot find  and conclusion or meaning, and then we go back bout our business. in that we all go back to our business i think that this necessitates all our existentialism we cannot escape it, the existentialitst and their predecessors did  the job of describing what it is that we do there, there is any exception. what i heard perry saying about heidegger was that in terms of science, we hold it as a system ...(bla not important to explain)...but that it is esentially as subjective as anything else, but further more, i think that, though i havent read him yet, he maybe didnt go deep enough in that - by their constant attempts, which they undoubtedly know are subject to question, at obective truths, they are simply defining their lives and themselves as such; we are all existentialists at heart, we all give what can only ever be known as arbitrary meaning to our lives, whether it is search for objective truth through a subjective mind or playing guitar. so i propose that by virtue of the fact that we can all agree that we are able to take the step back, unsucessfuly reflect, and continue to take ourselves seriously, this is the way of the mind. we are so open to the world and so attached to in mentally from birth that we cannot come to any terms by stepping back, we wont get anywhere by living detached from our lives (so to speak), so we just naturally crawl back into our caves and live, and this is the only way for us to be, there is no other way, each way of being is as arbitrary as the next.

i think what i want to get out of this is a good distinction between the two. at what points does my "world" my existentialist nature, come to bear on how i act (maybe when i need to deal with a daunting problem, i remember that it is simply the definition that i give to my life which makes my situation so grave and that in truth i live my life the way i do and this is a result of the meaning which i willfuly give myslef) so maybe i dont freak out, and myself, my meaning while im in my cave, while im involved in the world around me instead of looking at it from afar (this world includes my own meaning, which i can step back and look at). this brings up a point of what parts of my mind are my meaning and which my being; i can step back and look at my vigor in typing my philosophical thoughts, which is a part of my meaning, but i am still being. this way i can see my meaning from outside, but cannot escape that i am still being. i suppose thats the two differences that i need to differentiate. meaning and being. 

in this light, among other things, there is a differentiation between meaning and being, philosophically that is. i wouldnt divide any schools up, but i think theres a study of being, and a study while meaning. the study of being i would say is an existential study, one that studies the nature of our being, that is, our nature to step back, find no conclusive evidence of an 'all-inclusive meaning' such as god or something else holistic. i think the state of stepping back could be connected to what the idea of a priori had been trying to get at. philosophy nearly as a whole, though, is a volition, it is capricious, it is a study of something while being that thing, the nature of being we know to be uncertain in itself because we can all reflect and remain uncertain about any holistic meaning. we are certainly not interested in any sort of ontology here, but rather how we are being, because i already am and i cant imagine knowing the entire story of how i came to be would do me any good.

i suppose this also touches on a certain kind of skeptical duality, that is, that my mind is a step back, as well as an intertwined part of my body and my world. it just can never escape my world. i think skepticism is also a naturalor rather, a part of our being (as opposed to meaning). we are skeptics by the nature of our urge to step back and find that meaning, and also by our nature to attach ourselves so sereiously to our meaning which we find in our worlds. skepticism is our beings philosophic nature, it is our tendency to question and look for meaning, but with our dogmatic tendencies to want everything to be uniform, people like descartes took skepticism too far, he failed to realize that it is a temporary part of our being, and that it does not disclose anything further anfter our inability to discover any holistic meaning or somthing that we take part in. i think a posteriori is something that we add meaning to our lives from being and meaning. since we cannot find anything objective from a subjective and uncertain existence, our a posteriori findings are simply additions to our meanings, what we experience and deduce add and augment our lives inside of our meaning. that we can step outside and discover things like our lack of ability to decisivly discover any holistic or constant meaning, we can take that, as \a philosopher does, and apply it to our meaning, my meaning is the analysis of meaning and being and life, and thus my being influences heavily on my meaning, so kant was right when he said that there are synthetic a priori discoveries, but where he put his categories of sythetic, analytic, a priori, and a posteriori, were slightly misguided. i think that they apply more easily ad readily to the states of our being. that is that most directly synthetic and a posteriori states are states in our meaning when we are involved in our world, and a priori and analytic states are states of our being and our step back nature.

what many analytic philosophers have missed is the experience thing. not only can we discover synthetically from an a priori state, but our a priori state, is a state of expereince, and thus a priori is not before experience, but rather a state of before meaning is applied; a significatio.

thats my beggining thesis on everything.