The ubiquity of the 80:20 rule in group endeavours suggests that what counts are neither individual or relationships, but relationships to relationships. This would mean that the effects scale with the cube of the number of actors, and applying this to the 80:20 yields close to a 50:50 split, that is, an equilibrium on the level of relation to relationships of the two groups in which the 80 relate mostly among themselves and the 20 to all. In other terms, the geometry of the triangle being predominant. The weight of oedipal or mimetic themes in fiction bear this out as well.

Disputes about matters of fact are disputes about the conditions for truth, in this way every such matter affects every other. It is not certain that the conditions for truth can be recognised, they can only be enacted hypothetically to see if they fit, the recognition is deferred and anyway left to you. If there was a way of knowing one true thing then it could be used to slit open every semblance, but you cannot be certain that you yourself contain a condition for truth, much less the thing itself.

Every kind of discourse contains an appeal to a truth function which is a cross-over between the text and its reception. The truth is not based on factuality and structures of verification and objective testing and neither is it single and unchangeable. Truth is recognised but also reliant on authority, something to be tested by your own experience at the same time seen to be in accord with immemorial wisdom, the alignment of inner and outer vanishing points. The erosion of the social supports of an outer truth function, which was never anything more than a stand-in for revelation does not do away with the need but makes access to the inner voice more difficult against the background of a frenzy of recuperations.

There is a unitary self to just the same degree that here is a unitary world, and the same goes for the opposite paradigm, however it may be characterised, whether it be plural, or poly, or simply not-one. So much is staked on the opposition between the unitary and its current opposite, whether as description or as norm, but if you follow up each possible outcome it takes you back to the starting point. What is more interesting is the interplay between self and world, which does admittedly undo any fixity assumed to belong to either one, giving to each a mirage-like evanescence, but for the sake of a different unification.

The problem for any idealism remains that of showing in a non-question-begging way how you get the objective out of the subjective, in other words the exact opposite of the so-called 'hard problem'. Idealists might claim that no such problem exists because of something like imagination, the projecting of a world by the dreaming subject, but even if the introduction of this objective power of the subject were accepted, this only produces a weak, shadowy form of objectivity. You might ask, how does an objectivity worthy of the 'hard problem' being posed arise? Logic or a 'calculus of distinctions' fails in the same way. You need an equation (or a poem) written in the terms of subjective reality whose solution can only be an objective reality.

The medium of time solves no problems, resolves no contradictions, assuages no desires but enforces the oblivion that creates a surface illusion of such progress while preserving every moment in greater clarity than when it was experienced. There is nothing to prevent the resurrection of all these undead at the moment when it ceases to flow.

Consciousness is not a passive receptivity but is always active, always in action, and you are immediately conscious not of acting but of the shape, the gesture of the act, so that the it appears to itself only in a displaced reflection. You are aware of that displacement but not of what it is that is displaced. The gap is a token of your original freedom, of its creation of your world.