:
Meno_"]Sure the representation within the absolute mind is merely a map. And that is a conscious interpretation within the symbolic content of the dream.
[/quote]
I’m not sure about that segue. By, “within the symbolic content…” do you actually mean “of the symbolic content…” ? There is a difference, or maybe I’m reading it wrong. Could you please rephrase that?
- Your first question is caught up in semantic complexity, therefore, and since the dissection of hybrid re-presentation between cognitive differentials is sourced in definitions, I quote Frege:
Sep 23, 2007 · The central idea of the alternative interpretation is that for Frege, the question whether a given thought is logically entailed by a collection of thoughts is sensitive not just to the formal structure of the sentences used to express those thoughts, but also to the contents of
the simple (e.g., geometric) terms …
Here ‘formal’ can entail ‘absolute’ as well, reminiscent of set theory, where the absolute contains every set, including it’self.
Here conscious, unconscious(sleep derived) and subconscious (absolute containment of awareness past, present and future)-[ remember we alluded to this previously, in terms of of primary spatial determinants of time.] Absolute spatial indeterminancy exposes the lack of object(ive) of the imminence of all cognition. Transcendence, on the other hand is objectified by a particular epoch, or the object’s frame of reference, or context which brings about the overcoming of said object, referred to.
The overcoming of it, sets in motion(spatial relativity per movement through time) of the objective particular.