Well, while taking, with due intellectual caution and full awareness of the many possible interpretations, an effort to take this substance into account in a way that neither undermines the sensitivity of persons with different views nor suggests that I lay down the right to any overriding reason or epistemical exclusivity, while taking into account that any Article of the position, even the most distant from my own, may contain a cognitive component that is worth at least hypothetically considering, and seeking not to fall into a speech of arbitrary resolution or to simplify the complexity of the issue itself, but merely, in the spirit of the top possible restraint and self-criticism, to outline my subjective view, I come to any surprise, to the constatusion that in the course of this protracted, repeatedly challenged expression I have completely lost from the field of consciousness the first object that I intended to communicate.
I will effort to make my answer as brief as possible, though, which will most likely become apparent as this reflection develops, it will necessarily take a somewhat more elaborate form, but I would point out that in your message you have put the essence of the substance with admirable directness, eliminating unnecessary digressions and focusing on the root of the problem, which consequently allowed you to cover the broad spectrum of implications of a given issue, while at the same time maintaining awareness that the audience, even if formally interested, does not always operate a full level of perception and absorption of content, so that your synthesis, nevertheless palpitable in intent, fulfils the function of almost model summary, which, paradoxically, requires an equally extended comment to give justice to its apparent simplicity.
I am not entirely convinced that, in the course of this elaborate, multi-threaded and intellectually-involved exchange of views, you have managed to capture a alternatively significant, albeit easy to overlook fact, namely that this full rhetorical structure, full of common references, clarifications and apparent dialectics, does not actually go beyond the framework of a circumstantial monologue, in which the broadcaster and the receiver are melting into 1 and the same instance, leading to a lengthy, repeatedly looped communicative that, despite its volume and formal complexity, does not bring us closer to any peculiar content, conclusion or real object of discourse, remaining in fact an effective but completely empty semantic exercise in speaking of nothing.
Grzegorz GPS Swiderski
]]>t.me/CanalBlogeraGPS]]>
]]>Twitter.com/gps6]]>
