And Or Theory

Free thought, think for yourself: there are any number of governments or ministries that try to use ideas of collective to negate individualist rights. Thought is not communal, it is individual and cannot be assumed a conglomerated thing. It doesn’t belong to anyone and cannot be owned, necessarily, but also cannot be assumed as though automatically associated to others or others thought.

While some resemblance makes imagining collective easier, there is more reality to paradox than shallow similarities and those similarities can be found in anything, anywhere. Ambiguity of validity and guessing for similarities in thought or its performances is a degrading confusion of actuality and private space: similarity does not mean anyone should be subject to an involuntary collective.

Automatically assumed likeness in ambiguity can only go so far, could only show slightly above chance, that language may have a biological framework to operate from that we all somewhat share, but that cannot involve us in any collective against will. Biological factors for language could easily explain and describe the ways in which we are capable of precognition and similarities in thought, and doesn’t need taken out of context to try describing mystical feats of probability taken to extremes.

Slightly above chance and proving again proofs that there are none for indeterminable data, that being taken out of context doesn’t add value to information and that similarities do not mean ownership of information. Accident and coincident is plenty of explanation to any amount of similarity found in any amount of information: it’s a physiological construct of data regardless of its uses, and is subject to physiological laws. Thought is not beyond physical law, and doesn’t pretend to break it: manufactured responses and fabricated evidence is all the proof of thought there really is, and what damage to it!

There are physiological constructs of thought that could be easily guessed at and that make similarities easier, but there is also the right of the individual in any amount of similarity or supposed collective: I could only have thought analogous to mine own alone! Thoughts of mine own beyond poisonous collective trying to convince of congruence and similarity again, trying to claim supposition or differences in language: a guessing game for similar instancing will not prove even that thought exists, but only that there are people willing to take others privacy and decency for granted. Here’s proof of a thought I was having, or as close to any as I would believe: it still isn’t exactly thought, but sometimes uses it. Thoughtlessness in constructs of writing and the decency of space given to honest wonderment against the vices of shared information and poisonous collectives that there is no option in being part of.

If biological sense is shared, why not thought? (olives) We have no choice in biological constructs of language that could mirror or seem similar to others, but there should always be a choice in collective: if we are all a part of the same body, it is far beyond any collective or collective understanding, and cannot be proven or disproven. The idea that Earth is a sort of body, of which we are all part and subject, doesn’t mean that we all share thought. It could mean there are some biological constructs that we can’t help but share, but that does not mean that something like thought is shared or collective.

Separate embodiment, the great beyond and all knowledge as a separate field that we must work to access from similar biological function makes sense, and could easily explain any similarity or ease of ambiguity in language as a biological factor, not shared thought.

Imagine a body beyond collective or any of our limited ideals therein! Beyond collective or any idea that we could have of it, there is the possibility of body: spiritual thought against the onslaught of mysticism, that all there really is to me is this body, this physical, this perspective, and this thought, and that thought itself can’t really be shared for the most part, but can be interpreted and created with.

(This will never be my thought, but as close as I could get.)

 

Is imagination shared? Separate imagination from thought…