Binary Logic #2

Systemic confusion is obfuscating in its syntax, but for words they are mere abstract representations of ideas which cannot be psychologically parameterized because they cannot be spoken of directly. Take the example from Wittgenstein. Words are merely a matter of play; contingency ultimately depends on the mathematical differentiation used to coherently explain a relational concept of which one can fully comprehend. This ultimately depends on the existence of relativity, insofar as one's subjective experience interdepends on the interpretation and parameterization of perceptual phenomena. Since size, color, and even topological essentiality depend ultimately on one's perception and interpretation of those qualities, one cannot say that objects are absolutely "big" or "small" (being of course that size is relative). The problem is fear of the fact of wrongness: your sense of reality exists according to your own subjective experience. Your interpretation of the "objective world" creates an epistemic model which is nothing more than an illusion conferred by built-in psychological mechanisms that have been evolving for hundreds of millions of years, as well as the language you use in order to categorize and conceptualize those experiences that are subconsciously interpreted by your primate brain. 

Please move to off-topic

it's a philosophy

If you have to TELL people that it's a philosophy... then it's probably not a very good one.

I like you.