​Anxiety begins as the object of desire is falling away. Anxiety is the only actual predictor of the path: it is the path's course to find the truly desired.  

Know your object of desire, find your path to the object, you are already/always on it.  The object can shift, “the path winds furiously in the wind.” 

Ultimately -- replace all objects with one—and for the moment, the one object as yourself—then realize that that one “0bject” is an impossible position—the need/desire for a wife/partner/friend—therefore, the path also is equally impossible.

We become/are impossible (your anxiety illustrates this) because being "one," is being alone, in it you become indivisible — one/you is/are divided -- you are wholly/divided, 0/1.  The 0ne thus cannot be logically defined outside of this paradox--it is self-causing, "causa sui." 

Now replace the impossibility of it, of the 0ne -- with 2/two because one is self caused in relationship to 0/zero (nothing/anxiety), in contra-distinction with an "other," another person another bird, a “wife” — another whatever... Now STOP, BREATHE, replace the ____  the moment (2/two-0/1) that is one with zero/0 and ALL is free and far from “the path” and anxiety... The object of desire needs to be dissipated... no longer being an object but the subject and that Subject can choose what (s)he wants to be desire.

Let’s begin by making a distinction between an everyday problem that has no root in your psychology and a clearly psychological problem that is rooted in your past, in the history of your life.  The everyday problem makes its presence  known at various moments throughout your day and while it may be off-putting to various degrees it does not form a pattern.


An example of this would be a flat tire.  If you are to go out to your car and find one of its tires flat, this would not automatically indicate there is some deep psychological trauma; however, if you were to consistently find yourself flummoxed by flat tires, then the question should arise as to why have you repeatedly been confronted with such a problem?  Is it that you do not remember the ever deepening pot-hole, that you repeatedly run over?  Is it that you are constantly “low” on funds and have not been able to devote the money to the replacement of old tires?  The point is that there are general, happenstance, occurrences, problems that you may have no way of knowing or predicting, but a psychologically rooted problem can be predicted and you may even been fully aware of the patterned nature but have not been able to alter its reoccurrence.


The psychologically rooted problem occurs similarly to the general problem, but to the extent that it repeats itself in a pattern distinguishes it from a general everyday problem.  It is the repetition of the psychologically rooted problem that gives you a clear signal, that is—if you can become aware of the pattern, you are dealing with an unresolved issue from your past.


So the first step is making a distinction between the general problem and the psychological problem and this can initially be made with the identification of a pattern or repetition.  The next step is to isolate the context for which the psychological problem is reoccurring.  The context is related to the who, what, when, and where, while the how and why of the context is essentially the groundwork of your past and the psychological material to be discovered.

Pure Contextual Perception [PCP] is the Psycho-Contextual term coined and based on the psychological research of Mathew Dwight Quaschnick of Eagan MN, United States of America.  PCP describes the unique experience of a paradoxical mind state theorized as “Thend.”  PCP is the physical experience of the psychological state of thend where all states exist simultaneously as both virtual, i.e. psychological; and as actual, the "real" physical world.  In their virtual state things have physical appearances as psychological perceptions.  In their actual state, as they are physically engaged with the 5 senses things become actualized.  ®eality includes everything that is and is not and either has been or will be, whether or not it is observable or even incomprehensible.  A still broader definition includes that which has (Past) existed, (Present) exists, or (Future) will exist.

Trauma is any event that threatens the integrity of the physical organism or psychic apparatus.
Catastrophic physical trauma is any degree the organism loses its physical integrity that leads to permanent use restrictions in whole or in part and are not recuperable post trauma inducing event.

Catastrophic psychic trauma is any degree the psychic apparatus--i.e. Psyche: ego, id, superego; loses its symbolic integrity that leads to permanent functional restrictions in whole or in part and are not recuperable post trauma inducing event.

The fact is that Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus created a functionary truth serum for philosophical realities; however, and through his own admission—nothing was attained or admissible for psychological realities: “What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.” 
 (Cartoon credit: Thefirst philosopher.
© 2002 by John Holden)​                 
​
The truth of this work and all psychological realities: “Silence speaks all the more eloquent than speech and all the more clear is silence in its speech—No longer need your silence slumber, eternally quiescent, but also may it infinitely reverberate.”
 
This treatise is not meant to have the same type of logical coherence that traditional theoretical works, specifically in the physical sciences, seek to portray and purport to attain, which then lead to the formation of a set of mutually dependent principles that when taken in part or summation direct the individual theoretician to a singular and logical conclusion or system of thought.
 
Instead this treatise is meant to illuminate the inconsistencies that belie the appearance of logical coherence itself, as only a verbal facsimile or word game.  The reality is that with every conclusion or thought systemization there is a remainder or question mark.
 
This is to say that in every conclusion there is a beginning and that in every system of thought there is something yet “un-thought” and that this is only shear folly to believe conclusively in anything or in a “completed” thought.  To believe that everything has been said that can be said or shown all that there is to show.
 
However, in direct alignment with the main thesis of this work which states that Wittgenstein’s silence is a self-imposed parameter of Logic and not of expression, there is also space for conclusion (this work does conclude—it does end) and for conclusive finalities—it is just the penchant for Logic or Rationality to deem itself the measure of sense and the punisher of irrationality and the nonsensical.
 
There is a subterranean movement that produces its own offspring, wild and uncontrollable, vibrant and colored—that is not simply non-sense or dismissible as “mere” poetry.  Logic has never and will never complete its own circuit because it bases its own foundation on a paradox and antinomy.  These are the failures of deductive and inductive reasoning, which never themselves, nor threw any other currently known means, are capable of justifying the deducting premises nor induced conclusions.
 
The internal antinomy of deductive logic is the completely baseless and assumptive nature of every deductive premise and likewise with induction and its non-extrapolating conclusions that are also only assumable potentials with no verifiable predictive capacity.
 
And yet Logic, rationality and Reason have maintained a hegemonic deliverance or stranglehold for all knowledge allowed or disallowed.  Not only the factual bits and historical minutia but also the ways knowledge is generated, from the scientific method to the Hegelian Dialectic, but also the way it is conveyed or transmitted, priestly classes and ivory towers.
 
Logic is primarily and firstly about control.  The explicit control it exerts is toward Thought as it gives the appearance of gentling guiding and ordering cognition but this same guidance and orderliness does not end with the harmless and beneficent cognitive processes.  Logic’s control extends to and implicitly transmigrates to the socius, the economic and political, and is especially pernicious in regard to the lower classes or the segment of the populace whom are without the means of production, the rank and file producers—those without the means—an adequate educational system or the capability—the intellectual/cognitive ability to be educated, to wield the sword of Logic.
 
Neither, Reason nor Logic, are to be specifically demonized or denigrated, but instead it is the motive of this work to highlight and critique the monopolizing power granted to these forms of information gathering and dispersing.  It is neither this works aim to raise as cause célèbre and juxtapose the illogical or nonsensical with Logic, but it is to rather show that there is a very tangible alternative to the time honored celebration of Logic as the only and primary arbiter of experience and expression.
 
The main purpose of this work is to realign the knowledge-power differential that has existed for centuries as Logic and Reason have been heavily weighted in favor of those who have had the means and capability to access and apply these very specific modes of relating.  The relational dynamic that is created by Logic and Reason is twofold: One is to the entity that is Knowledge but also and more so there is the representational function of Knowledge, as channeled through Logic or Reason, as individual is meant to relate to individual and likewise socius to individual and individual to socius.  A considerable degree, if not all relational dynamics are filtered through the cognitive lenses of “is it logical,” “are you being reasonable?”
 
Again this is not to isolate, rehabilitate or champion the cause of nonsense or the illogical, but it is to show the merit and potential in their functions as effective foundational bases for Logic and Reason—as they themselves have never been able to ground themselves in themselves, which is itself, a bit of a paradox or antinomy.