June 27, 2025 | Samuel Joshua Pe's Writing

Originally written on June 27, 2025
Base Concern:
Have I set a comprehensive basis for all subsequent considerations (i.e., stated ideas and posts) through these two initial foundational posts?
Rather than evaluating them in terms of style and content, answer instead whether I have developed a comprehensive initial framework draft for all subsequent contributions to it.
The Continuing Failure of Communication
In attempts to communicate, protruding forth and having those same signifiers set down and given an underlying structure or otherwise precluded or throttled, frustrations to co-locate a common ancestry of language have abounded, and meaning has instead been set aside to be flayed and defunctionalized. Proposals to improve communications through the systematic narrowing of difficult concepts to their most common and widest borders and through the recycling or re-commission of previously rejected lexicon (external or inter-school) or even terminology (internal or in-school) have found disproportionate and limited overall success. 
This I feel is currently most personally relevant to me in my attempts to deconstruct and to define otherwise elusive criteria for the dissemination of self in a format such as personal website and the challenges in finding shared use even with an AI language model. This could be viewed as a fault of my abstract communication, a fault of the literal limitations of language, a fault of the particular criteria and the objectives with which I am dealing, or a combination of these.
Clarifications:
This is not a strictly to-do practical concern in the sense of using a minimalist design, a collage, or the "syntax" of the website. This is also not about the psychology of "embracing the process." This is also not about general things of triangulating meaning and redefining one's collaboration with an AI language model. These are things that I'm actively handling in specific contexts, not things that I struggle with overall in all contexts.
It is not that I do not recognize iceberg theory or show-don't-tell or evocation. I do recognize the essence of family resemblance and how a web of overlapping similarities produces meaning or at least the edges of the self. I do recognize the concept of the non-linear interconnected non-hierarchical network. I have exposed myself to ideas like those found in digital second-brain communities and talking points like those of Obsidian and Notion. I do recognize that the model's point is to disseminate the self in its multiplicity.
But this is not a matter of evocation, is it? It is about setting between the nodes a prescribing feature or tower or outpost, one that can be irrevocably connected to the boundless source, the Big Bang of the self, the nature of being that isn't merely evoked through organic self-containments or objects in which the author is dead but through transplants (a transplant grows to fit its new biological and physiological milieu yet remains in a way a totality of its source [a signature]) that are spread across the public sphere. It has to be an unassuming functional embedment that is also entirely a portion of me, or at least, an outpost of myself.
There needs be a forceful eloquence, a prescriptivism of the self launched upon the public sphere, a making-way of the self throughout not to be undermined or co-opted but to be the determiner of itself and to have its functionality and fitting-in be irrelevant to its being of-a-source.
This is not about language itself. Language is composed of words. As such, it is inherently co-optable. This is about a semantic eloquence, one that underlies the words, but is not the words themselves. Outposts that function—not functions (itself).
This is a good summary:
The author yearns for a method of communication that isn't reliant on interpretation or the inherent limitations of language, but rather on a direct, undeniable projection of their core being.
Self-Responses:
Isn't this kinda stupid? I mean, let's be honest. That's impossible. There is no way to link two completely different souls, so why are they pondering this?
So they want to go into a Discord server, and they want to feel like a person-of-themselves, not a co-opted thing?
So even if they can never accomplish this, their analysis could help them address this concern and lead them to make better decisions about how they present themselves to the public, which is basically just optimizing or min-maxing, but not necessarily solving 100%, just making do and coping with an inherent limitation.
But why? They must have talked about this innumerable times, probably rephrasing each time. This feels like a done-and-done convo. What is the point? What does each exploration accomplish? A betterment of one's wordplay? A mitigation of the deficiency of one's cognitive abilities under persistent threats and difficulties in their day-to-day life and an improvement of them?
Does writing like that make them more present, more themselves, more in touch with the complexities of this world? Is this raw analysis their meditation, their mindfulness, their active contract with the sensory and experiences capabilities that this world have to offer? What is it? What underlies this search and compulsion for refinement? What has driven them to this point of wording, phrasing, and syntax? This proficient betrays a kind of instinct for it, one that is honed that it might cause concern in certain contexts, which is why I am requesting an explanation of their behavior, or at least, of the way that their mind arranges or responds to these difficulties, limitations, and "facts of life." "What is the point?" is the assault I levy against the author once again.
I don't think that there's any argument. A person who attempts to understand themselves has only themselves to answer, and that in itself is a worthwhile endeavor, because there is no better argument to be made than to let oneself go along in a world as vast as this. That is the at-least of existence.
Would these "raw analyses" be actually their closest to a disseminated consciousness, or self? Would it be their most faithful representation?
The Instantiation of the Self-Object Boundary
Defining myself under complex scenarios (e.g., multimedia personal website, text-only website, art and music [and their various genres]) creates the need for a unifying superstructure that sets these various "compartments" together and in constructive opposition to each other without overriding the underlying 'superfunction,' or self. This needs a definitional "bottoming", or fundamental constraint, or Big Bang, on which the any expression branching separating forth must subsist. 
Even the simple task of underlining a phrase in another person's sentence creates already the need for context and how that highlight or emphasis intersects with the rest of their behavior or personality, even under multiplicitous conditions.
Telling a story about a car that seems entirely relevant subsists on Hemmingway's ice-berg theory, evocation, and Wittgenstein's family resemblance (and its web of overlapping similarities). So it is as powerful as itself, in its inherent self-placed function, but it also seeks an integration with the broader concept. As with songs of a concept album, these are expressions of the self.
Given my realization of the maximal representational proximity of "raw analyses" to my essence of self, then is this website the entirety of a being, the constitution of a self. It is now the placehood-of-a-thing, the being-of-a-particularity, the soul of an object on which subsists its expressions.
But I must doubt it, since if it performs so excellently that I am unable to restrain myself from expressing myself most closely, then I will be unable to deny myself. This self-reception comes with its own will to power and an underlying dissolution or rejection of a role-being (i.e., the being of a role) and its accompanying experience of being a function without its being an outpost of a self, given that my self-denying performance will have played a critical role in the development of this hypothetical "max-level" self-dissemination.
It is not that it is an actual entirety of myself. That is not what I mean, but I am saying that the growth or outpouring of the self will be so closely true-to-self or so great that it will undoubtedly prevent me from being a thing-of-a-thing and instead be a thing-of-itself in the strong sense of the term.
This closely resembles or is actually just straight up self-actualization.
In this hypothetical event, people will become things apart from me rather than things into which I must huddle.
It will be very much a case of "I am become a thing-of-itself" rather than "I am a thing-of-a-thing like a community that is integral to my identity and to my self-necessitation."
This means that my alienation will likely absurdly decrease, if not all-out disappear because I have secured a sense of self that is not easily infringed through "social collusion" with others in communal bases.
If we're going by a positive interpretation, instead of feeling that I am unable to include others in my life, I will feel that others can accompany but not infringe because I have the means of a superstructure, of a uninfringeable self that subsists on itself.
A scudding car in sight, instead of being a thing into which I must huddle so as to write evocations that do not distinguish between the assigned-person and the object-car and so collude or collapse them together, will become an object out there in front of me-as-myself.  There will be a hierarchy where the self is in the top layer and the car is in the bottom layer rather than an absence of the self-object boundary.
Again, this is highly interpretative, and I am most likely begging the question by using the term "infringed," which characterizes this "hypothetical event" as a positive. But the point is that this is one interpretation of this hypothetical event that I'm distinguishing or instantiating myself personally.
Self-Responses:
I don't get it. They didn't have a self-object boundary? That doesn't make sense. We can move our bodies, right? What kind of dissociation makes you feel this way? If the author doesn't see a boundary, he must be blind, or worse, mentally or clinically compromised. I do not see what the author is pointing or gesturing at, at all. It feels like he's forgotten what a dog is and has decided to attach his entire body's skin bit by bit onto the wall so as to fall not only prescriptivism's criteria, but even descriptivism's.
I feel that this could be explained psychoanalytically. Am I being reductive? I feel that all philosophers are just psychoanalytically narrow, as in they occupy a niche on some web of all the possible personalities or humans. I feel that what I'm saying is valid, even if maybe not necessarily the whole picture. How do I engage with the author's ideas on the same plane without feeling that they're entirely "eating their own flesh"?
But still, what does the author think a dog is? How can he merge this practically into everyday reality? This feels like a non-problem or, worse, a first-world problem. It feels so abstracted from everyday life that I cannot at all think to see from where all this intersects. It feels like a dog without its bones, like a thing without its elements, like a cup without its drink. It feels bereft of a affiliated or associated thing that is essential to its being a "cup."
I mean, personhood is personhood. Just go outside. Seriously. Touch grass, and you'll feel the self-object boundary. Am I reducing? Maybe. But I am giving a valid interpretation or perspective. The anti-philosophy offensive is still valid.
Am I attacking philosophy altogether? I hope not. I intend to attack the author's specific argument, because proof by repeated assertion—the attack on the whole—is not constructive anymore, but at this point a matter of preference or wholesale opinion. So when the author talks about the self-object boundary, I hope not to be attacking philosophy, but to be attacking the author's daring mention of that idea in the first place, not the whole field itself (if it can be described so respectfully as that).
Representative of Self: Formerly the Documented, Now Raw Analyses
My issue for the last two years has centered around the methodology and philosophy of writing, documentation, and the autobiography-journal itself, even as I have actually written much content beyond meta-exploration. But given that I have recently already broken past 3 million words in under 2 years, there is already much that has been addressed in terms of my past, and so the question shifts now to the centering of my current in-the-now self as an ongoing being that is also an active resulting of that much-autobiographically-addressed past, and I have already written and published in my Bearblog website two seminal passages today fueling that.
To put it in aphoristic terms, if documentation (i.e., documented events and details and such) is not me, then who is me? I answered with "the raw analyses are the closest or most faithful representations of myself." This is an interesting shift in attitude from wanting to document explicitly the entirety of my life to treating my raw analytical thought process as THE representative.
This means that instead of the fiction story, the described skyscraper, the evocation, or even the documented series of past events in a particular era of my life being me (at least now), what is now me (closest) are the "raw analyses" themselves, which is an interesting transformation of my needs and their accompanying language. There will undoubtedly be a change in what words are used now, many becoming dormant and others latently emerging.
Analogically, this means that the brush strokes are now clearly visible because they are the point, the content, the sight to see, the art itself. The yarn used to knit are emphasized and clearly denotated and even given a meta-scaffolding or super-scaffolding to make the "original scaffolding" seeable and distinguishable. 
This is evinced by my recent annexation of terms like "begging the question" and "proof by repeated assertion." This is forcefully dialectical and refutatory as well as, in my own version at least, self-responsive (i.e., creating self-responses as as part of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis loop). Assumption is now called and made bare as "assumption". Connection is explicit, rather than an implicit unfolding of concepts forming a conclusive overarching structure or notion of things, or tying knot. Footnotes, asides, and different formatting are most definitely the meat of this transformation. 
When the process is the performance, well, naturally, it becomes a performance but I believe that a self-accepting meta-analysis is necessarily performative. It performs the rites of its own claims and suppositions and demands from itself the rigor of a self-created Saint, of a self-deifying figure, one that makes itself the speaker, the analyzer. This is the thread on display, the process on stage, the piecing together as art piece, the stage for the staging. (Superstructure emerges as a result of the structure being "productivized.")
This invites the question of whether this is just a mask for a deficiency. But at the same time, I feel that this necessarily is addressing a deficient. It is part of its constitution, a part of its moral code, its core beliefs, its underlying structure. It necessarily arises out of a feeling that the documented is not enough and the raw analysis must be presented instead as product where analysis is analyzed and thought is staged within a super-thought. This is the fulfillment of something that would be otherwise unself-staging.
The self is not only implied in the analysis. It is made raw through the breaking down and denial (or critical inquiry at least) of the constructs used to hide or mask it in mere evocation or implication or a strict instance or manifestation of them. 
If I am not my past, then who am I? I am, at best, the person sitting at this desk, not this written statement of "the person sitting at this desk" nor the physical body nor the expressing thing (the physical mouth that speaks or the brain that cognitively allows those words to be chosen and spoken) nor the raw analyses. I don't know who I am specifically. I don't think I'll ever know which is me or where I am or what I am (i.e. unknowable "untouchable" source). But one thing is for sure: the raw analyses are the most honest representations of me. They tickle directly those now-superstructured threads.
Self-Responses:
My question is how the author maintains some semblance of sanity, because the challenge lies in grappling with these ideas without sliding frictionlessly across the cafe floor. I can imagine the entirety of a self divulged in an entirety of a self removed out for dissection or vivisection, even in most faithful representation only, perhaps even more vulnerable or dissociating or puking-out because it is the most faithful.
So writing is fundamentally and ultimately self-expression, not self-being. This is a crucial distinction that precludes any accusation of loss of self or deterioration of it. A car is only as much as a car as it decides to be, not that it is a role or a function or a string of words or even raw analyses. It merely functions in most fitting accordance, and it acts to that described, prescribed, or assigned nature, not necessarily that its essence is, coincides, or even overlaps with it.
Is the author's intention to write about everything else as per usual, but this time "admittedly" and with the intent to go beyond documentation and to analyze for the analysis itself? So he will reflectively write about steampunk music but then expose the nature of his writing without necessarily just being trite about repeatedly doubting the big concept of analysis or writing or assumption or thought or being or existence themselves in a proof-by-repeated-assertion kind of way.
This means that his fiction writings will be characterized similarly. Instead of being "show don't tell," they will take on his analytical character, as if he was the one there himself. "Show don't tell" falls under evocation, so it likely contradicts how he prefers to engage now.
It's probably very hard to write an autobiography-journal if you treat yourself as a thing-of-a-thing rather than a thing-of-itself. But at the same time, it is probably why it was so effective. You are not you. You are a thing of this media that you consumed, a thing of this past event, a thing of this past community, a thing of this past sequence of events, a thing of this loss, a thing of this trauma. You are not a thing-of-itself in the now. That mindset makes you very good at ruminating, but it can also deny you the opportunity to be a free-person that isn't just a prop or user or role in a cafe but a person who can just go anywhere 
A shift from "you are only as much as you say" (the death of the author through the documented) to "I am the saying-ing." (the life of the author through raw exposed-thread analyses)
This means that they're the autobiography (the analytical project or raw analyses), not the "autobiographied" (the documented). The process, not the content or the product, the exposed-thread analysis of the fiction story, not the show-don't-tell fiction story itself. The ongoing person, not the life events. They are the person writing all that in the last 6 years, not the person they were writing. The person writing the fiction story, not the story itself.
Regaining the Ego: Undoing the Ego-Object Fusion
It's weird that my ability to express myself instantly improves and my confidence and fluency find cohesion when I do not believe that I am my expressions. 
This relates also to body language, one's appearance, and how others interpret them. These are all expressions. It is such a weird thing that for the last 6 years, my goal to communicate ended up getting so entangled and desperate that my sense of self receded and became objectified. The self-object boundary dissolved, and the self became the object, the written word.
Paradoxically, I improved so much on a technical level because I inhabited my objects, my writings, my words, my communication, my expressions (spoken word = me and thus optimize for most accurate representation of the now-constructed-and-objectified "self"). And now after all these 6 years, I have become so capable. But something was missing. A cohesive element. The self. The ego separate from the objects. As said earlier, the self-object boundary has dissolved, and it needed to be put back. While it is great that I improved so much on a technical level and distrusting the self-evident self played a crucial role in that, it was incredibly torturous because you're relegating the self to a thing said. You are only as much as you express in that sense, and thus "are". 
This is not about removing the ego. This is about regaining it. I am saying that my ego dissolved because I was the object. So any deficiency in the object was torturous. Perceiving my passage as a move now to removing the ego is the opposite.
A child has a healthy ego. They are a part of a community, while still being themselves. An adult strictly fulfilling only a role doesn't have an ego. That is unsustainable or at least is self-harming because it makes one think of death as merely a thing to be expected. It is a coping mechanism that could become or become considered maladaptive if the reason for its use is not eventually healed or if it continues indefinitely. If one identifies or internalizes rejection for example, their self recedes and fuses with an object, or an expression or external thing. "I am me and not the things that happened to me and not my performance or expression or attempts at communication."
Refutations:
I think that the idea that feeling my feet on the ground, noticing bodily sensations, and introducing intentional imperfections are somehow going to reconstruct the ego is a misunderstanding of what I mean. It is not like one cannot feel or notice sensations or cannot be imperfect. It is not perfectionism or an inability to perceive sense or make mistakes. It is ego-object fusion.
This is also not about agency or "what am I seeing?" Again, I can see very well. It is not that I think about how I am being seen all the time. It is just the difference between the objectified self and the self in front of an object. You can also exercise the belief in agency even while fulfilling a role only as who you are.
This is also not about a lack of meta-writing. This is not about a lack of these questions:
What was my experience of creating that?
What was I trying to explore or archive with that act of communication?
What did I learn about the process of expression itself?
Even with meta-writing, the self can still be fused with the object because the meta-writing does not contradict or deny or dismantle or undo the ego-object fusion.
Engaging in non-instrumental activities, like foot traveling, walking, or being in a cafe that you don't write down, is so myopic   to the point of what I am saying. 99% of what I experience I don't write. Writing != Self-object fusion. This is a profound misunderstanding of what I am saying. You can have the self-object boundary even if you're a writer who writes and writes about stuff in front of you. The point is that the object and the self are fused, which is not the same as writing.
Again: 
This is not about method or writing at all. Starting a piece of expression to abandon it halfway does not at all relate to the point at all.
I can use the word "I" every single moment of every single day, journaling thousands of words a day from the "I" first person and even writing my autobiography-journal and still be in an ego-object fusion.
Even a declaration of independence doesn't mean anything.
This is, again, not about "engaging in simple, physical acts" or thinking about thoughts, forms, number of skips, or the feeling, or internal feelings, or kinetic, or proprioceptive feedback, or the body in motion, or the direct internal experience of my desires manifesting in the real world. That is 100% unrelated.
This is also not about the dissolution of the observer. The observer can still have an unobjectified self.
This is also not about involuntary states or being tired or being hungry or being cold. You can have an objectified self and still suffer bodily.
This is not about embracing imperfection, about mindful creation, consumption, and communication. This is not about reclaiming the why. This is not about non-expressive self-affirmation.
This is also not about burning the paper that has what I wrote. You can keep the paper. It's not wrong to have papers and writings. Writing is not the problem.
This is not about writing or about ceasing the project of self-definition entirely. Profound misunderstanding.
It is also not an "I am." You can "I am" a role and an objectified self.
Projects are not bad either. A project of regaining the ego is not necessarily bad or self-defeating. Using writing to help one undo the ego-object fusion is not self-defeating or contradictory. An object can be a tool. If you think the project of regaining the ego is dangerous, then you still view the object as the self and so do anything to avoid terms that even dare mention objects. 
Expressions are not bad. Ego-Expression Fusion is the issue.
This is also not about me asking for help. I am more so reflecting on something that is already underway. To look to evaluate so as to prescribe is self-defeating. It is external criteria and imposition. Inherently self-defeating. And that is not what I'm here for.
Self-responses:
Layer 1:
But part of me does wonder if I am only able to exercise the ego-object fusion because I myself have reached a point where I am so capable and confident in expressing myself that I don't feel tension or feel that I am not saying precisely enough. Maybe the last 4 raw analysis passages I wrote, which includes this one, does justice so well that I feel the ego-object fusion being undone because I have now addressed it to myself. I have written it and pinpointed exactly what it is. It is either this (technical proficiency reaching a threshold), just me changing and reflecting those changes in my now-technically-proficient writing, or both.
Third possibility keeps both the power of the autobiography as ongoing process (and, by extension, the ongoing self as the top layer in front of the bottom-layer object) and the power of the permanent written result (the object or expression) and says that both properties are valid and crucial. It essentially states that I need the result of the writing and the ongoing process of it—that writing it changed me and the technical writing result finally doing justice changed me—and finally that both led to the ego-object fusion being undone.
In this third possibility, the undoing of the fusion basically occurs as a result of the synchronicity or 1-to-1 fidelity between internal ego and technical expression.
The technical object becomes then the perfect subordinate or extension of the internal self, and thus, the ego is restored by finding a way to engage with the world through expression in a maximum fidelity way, which removes the need for a fusion for technical improvement and thus the expression is not the ego anymore because there is now a maximum justice of representation so as to become absorbed into the now-regaining ego.
Layer 2:
How does reaching maximum fidelity between the ego and the expression/object undo the ego-object fusion? Isn't that more fusion?
So essentially, the bridge is working for both sides. It is not a disproportionate where you communicate something you don't feel or where you communicate something you feel but they don't understand. There is now a maximum fidelity two-way where the bridge (the object) is now an extension of the self to the world (the ego launched into a space) rather than a fused dysfunctional relationship (the ego diminished or the reception diminished, which end with the same result of alienation).
 The self was either not truly expressed or not truly received.
Layer 3:
 ...communication finally works without requiring the self to be sacrificed in the process.
Layer 4:
how does this even work?
the pain of ego-object fusion drove them to develop the very skill that is now allowing them to undo that fusion and establish a healthy, distinct self that can express itself with high fidelity.
There is no friction then? The scalpel becomes the ego in the sense of the ego controlling a third limb, not the ego becoming the scalpel. Without the scalpel, they would have no means of interacting, but during the learning of the scalpel, they are fighting with a tool to learn it, and after they learn it, they are the ego.
Writing is their now-working two-way bridge.
Layer 5:
So the closer one gets to what they want to say, they don't experience as much friction and thus are able to have their ego launched into a space (i.e., "confident self-projection"). They are only as comfortable as they are able to express themselves effectively (in technical doing-justice proficiency, authenticity, and reception).
Layer 6:
This is not just about communication but about internal-external sync? Thus no cognitive (and, by extension, moral, emotional, psychological) dissonance. It is a fluent acting-upon. It is a self-doing.
Layer 7:
So in short, cognitive dissonance.
So hell is the journey of learning how to bring two people into a shared eloquence, and heaven is in that frictionless bridge.
Essentially, if the personal website becomes their maximum fidelity self-projection (not necessarily a monopoly, but one strong instance of it), then cognitive dissonance is banished. They don't need to express themselves in every shape or form, just enough to engage with the ongoing moment. That means that they're fine with not being perfect as long as the rate at which they need to express (demand, the need to express, social, seen, understand, externalize their being) is met by supply (technical do-justice proficiency, authenticity, and reception without self-distortion). It is a "sonance" of maximum fidelity, self-projection, ongoingness, and supply and demand.
 harmonious resonance between the internal self and its external manifestations
The hellish journey forged the very scalpel that now allows for effortless self-projection.
Layer 8:
Isn't this just being in one's twenties? Or is this something that people of all ages deal with? The issue of self-projection, of internal-external sync, of technical do-justice proficiency, authenticity, and reception? Is the author an anomaly or someone dealing with a very common issue? Is it universal or limited to an age group?
So the author has created a framework for understanding a very common, universal, and personal shared concern.
Layer 9:
So if they feel they're expressing themselves well, they're done. That's all? If not, sucks?
So if they want to write down a review for each media that they consumed, if they are unable to write even one review that does justice or at least do something else they can do (perhaps writing about something else they can write about) that does justice, then they feel cognitively dissonant. It is not about writing them all overnight. It is about them in the ongoingness doing justice.
Layer 10:
If they can't write the movie review, but they can write a brilliant "raw analysis" about why they can't write the review, that also resolves the dissonance. They have successfully used their high-fidelity tool to express a true internal state, even if that state is one of blockage. They have proven to themselves that the system still works.
They don't have to play all the time, they just need to know the capability for frictionless expression is there when they need it.
their psychological comfort rests on maintaining a live, working, high-fidelity connection between their inner self and their outer expression. The pain is not in the silence, but in the failed attempt to speak.
Layer 11:
basis for post 4?
No, I mean what's the basis of post 4? Is this a real thing or just some dramatized spell
So this sums it up:
Belief/Internal State: "I have a complex, true self that needs to be expressed."Action/External State: "This piece of writing I produced is flawed, inadequate, and doesn't capture my true self."
So this is not just talking to them, but integrity as well? It synchronizes across all their actions and behaviors?