What is it to say something? To say a sayable?

For example, take the following assertion:

Grunt!

What is most remarkable is: this is an assertion.

We do accomplish assertions. We code our own ____ing even to ourselves as grunts. What grunting does is make two in time. (Note for later: And so it makes a two-ity!) It says

[This] [is] ____

The ____ can be a proper name, a kind, a quality, relation, number, feeling-about, and so on.

[Note that this shows that even simple two-ities (numbers) also contain, in that silent way of implicit linguistic inclusion. The (constructive) mathematical cognition “one,” the invented perception of that objective nothing whose function is to be something that we can treat as a “an addable unit; an addable that we treat as one, by which we mean and another”—that thing is also, when grasped in this way, a way that lets it be used as a joinable nothing, or something that adds nothing to the quantity except repetition, and causes increase abstracted from all qualities except this gossamer “pure increase”—that thing, when cognized in a way that allows adding-on, that pre-conceives the thing as an adder, an appendix: that thing can only be had if it is encapsulated in a way that makes it not only a distant known, but one that is exposed on both ends for joining. It says, “I am ready to lose my individuality, to become the mere increase of another.”

When I cognize a blob as a unit (a two-ity) I am couching it in a distancing wrapper or buffer. My consciousness surrounds it and owns it. It is my being bigger than it, my playing whole to its part, line to its segment, plane to its figure, that lets me know it. It is this transcendence-cum-inclusion that makes me subject an it, object. “I” contains “it”—I contain, comprehend, grasp, encompass.

This immanence-anchoring wrapping is accomplished by the [This] [is] that precede the ____.

This shows something important. First, that absorptive consciousnesses (dhyana) is a kind of intentionality that can be carried out, What is it? It is the pre-apperceptive (pre-reflective) consciousness that runs in ordinary absorptive sense consciousness. When sensation just comes—and even elicits automatic reaction—we are in absorption consciousness. When we amplify the apperceptive (epistemic) component, there is epistemic consciousness (judgment). Getting a good Kantian grip on epistemic consciousness lets us know, with some helpful detail, what the mysterious dhyana of mysticism really means. It is nothing special—just Sartre’s binding field consciousness from Transcendence of Ego, and treated in depth by Franklin Merrell-Wolff.

The act of grunting is “an assertion” because it says (!) one thing about another thing. An assertion means: at least two. Two foci of attention, mediated by some relation between them.

An image contains a thousand marks. If there is only one word in a language for an unforked segment of wood—let us say stick—then grunting “Stick!” could mean anything. The meaning is then contained in the tone (and this is where Derrida is most wrong in his clarity and distinctness of meaning, and most meaning is syntactic, and no syntax without an intelligible structuring, which requires spatial relations, which is why (as Hartman) says A = A is really a synthetic a priori judgment, whereas [A+B+C] is A is another entity entirely, as it involves the metaphysics of exemplified marks and containment, and Platonic universals and subsumption.

———

The transcendental, or the making that later looks like bringing-to, weaves its way into objects of sense perception (aka physical objects) by means of transcendental synthesis.

This transcendental synthesis is a way of supposing or intending or inventing by fiat a kind of connection between empirical contents. Bingo: there is one way of connection that must always be made, even if nothing is going on. Because the subject’s attention, and the realm that it attends to, is always passing “away” into absence.

[Note: Note the reliance on a spatial-prepositional concept to get at time, even the minimal brute fact of passing. Oh—and passing is also spatial. Passing and away are both spatial metaphors.]

To weave a rule of transcendental synthesis into the objective product of