I struggle with the decision to put this fragment of thought-process analogue here for I do not think it constitutes proper rigorous philosophizing and neither is this an analysis of the work of others'. But I consider this as important to deriving at a clear and distinct idea by means of this primitive philosophical meditation. Here I do not consider proper notations, concepts, terms, or the accuracy of such and such in relation to its proper authors. I consider only the aim of deriving at a clear and distinct notion of my idea of truth-hood. Such is then my first draft work.
Preceding conceptual thought
Our faculty of imagination plays the role of bringing the manifold intuition Anschauung - into a unified representation - Vorstellung in a singular moment (Kant, CPR A120). Such a faculty has has a 4 fold role of “recognition, reproduction, association, apprehension” (CPR, A125) to create that Vorstellung, that very order at that and every single moment. When we subsume an intuition under a concept of green, we get a representation and a perception of a green object. But the brilliance of our imagination is not only in its logical automaton subsumption. This very same faculty is what gives us our sense of the infinite. This same faculty of imagination can be not binded by the faculty of understanding and its concepts. It goes into a "free play" with the understanding's concepts... it enters into a non-conceptual schizophrenic state and experiences the feeling of infinitude.
Demonstration
I believe that nowhere in social life can one find infinitude except in our mind's free play. Of all things - natura naturata have a finite lifespan. All things in the animal kingdom are subject to their very own menance. Man is no exception. To man if there is an ontology, not transcendent, to be spoken about, is his finitude. If this were man's ontological substrate, then all modal relations or ties of man have a characteristic of his finitude as well. It is tarred with impermenance, transience, ephemerality that is man. Therefore, for every attempt made to seek permanence in relationships without the aid of laws, public opinion, will to glory, will to attain the honour of the human species, relationships will necessarily reach its final stage of decay and death. This is why we can find in the text and works of Isocrates, Aristotle, Xenophon - Oeconomicus, Plato - Laws that relationships are never in their pure and a priori forms, they are never das sich in itself but is always tied to the greater functioning of the ideal polis. Everything else, the identity of man, the relations of man, is perceived, understood, thought of as a substructure, an auxiliary pole of the polis for otherwise, left in abeyance, whatever is associated with man will necessarily reach its final phase. Hence Zarathustra's teachings. That if one tries to seek permanence in others, he will necessarily be disappointed. If one seeks permanence in any activity of man, he will definitely exhaust its multiplicity. One will necessarily be in time, adulterated and desecrated with disappointments that will not elude man. If one seeks in the necessarily fictive, unreal and unfounded, in man, one will necessarily not attain the felicity he desires and the serenity he wants. It is this 'insidious circularity' that man needs to extricate himself from. From 'him-the others' to 'him' a priori. Where his desired infinitude of life, permanence in love and pleasures is in the 'free play of the mind.' Where he always seek to-become and will always have the possibility to be victorious. Where his relationship with others is the two coming of free minds.
Through this odd collage of the Kantian frame, Descartes-style meditation and logical re-and-de construction, I have now clear and distinct idea of relationships.
Axioms
I: In giving, I give my whole heart and soul to everyone and anyone who crosses my path. In truthfulness then, I am truthful.
II: But truthfulness I do not associate it with common notions of temporality. For relationships with others is as demonstrated, always transient. It can never be outwardly extended in time and can thus never be outwardly prolonged and sustained in time purely. It can only be located only in that Heiddegerian-Foucauldian particularity or moment of time where the past and future is in the present. Thus, where one wants to give all, he must always cease every moment and that very moment. For the moment is all we have.
III: An Other-oriented attitude and mind is then necessarily wrong for it lets every moment pass and thus lets the all-ness of life escape. It is equivalent to suicide if the latter is understood as the surrendering of one's life or the cessation of one's life. If the moment is all we have, all is then the entirety of our life. Hence by letting the moment pass, we let life pass, and we have in such a sense killed ourselves everytime we let a moment pass without ceasing it.
IV: All relationships in whatever form, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual will necessarily have take on such a form.
V: If IV, is true, then all relationships are equal.
VI: If V is true, then all relationships are equally normal or abnormal.
VII: If VI is true, then all relationships have no "naturally intrinsic" normality or abnormality.
VIII: If VII is true, then there can possibly be many potential types of relationships.
IX: But because there is only one main type of relationship, the dominant heterosexual, there must then be mechanisms or forces at play that constitute such a static form.
X: Such a form of the type of relationship is necessarily aberrant because as demonstrated, the only real form is impermanence, transience and ephemeral.
XI: Such an ideal stable totality is necessarily inauthentic because only singular moments are true.
