As an individual ‚I‘ and a ‚Me‘, I am no more relevant than any other individual thing in the existence as an abstract, non-graspable (and possibly non-existent) whole of existence. I’m not more relevant or more or less individual than any other individual in the individuality of things (in essential difference to the level of the „order of things“ by Michel Foucault or any other interpretation of the hierarchicalised social level).
I’m relevant to and as the ‚I‘ and the ‚Me‘ in relation to my (fractal non-)self. The „social level“ is a distorting mirror, where we look for similarities and differences. The social act is the act of recognising the individuality of the respective other.

In or for my current noncausal philosophy: Change is not caused by (or a consequence of) action* and action is not dependent on change.

* Compare for example Pierre Bourdieu on individual and collective action.


To understand means at first and probably last to understand oneself in its own non-selfness. As a unity of open (parallel, contradictive and conglomerating) units in unit-being moments. Its self-similarity and difference, compositedness and moment-appearance.


not ants, patterns
not ants.

Human patterns, not causality. Statistical probability and priorities/distribution of weights. In social circumstances. In different social cotexts.

Der Subjektivismus aller individuellen Dinge und der Objektivismus der sozialen Situationen sind beide gleichzeitig und getrennte Welten.

Dekonstruktion und andere post- oder kritische Hintergehungen von festgelegten „Tatsachen“ oder vorherrschenden Interpretationen, Zuordnungen und Ordnungen,
brauchen keine fixierte Legitimation. Sie brauchen/setzen voraus ein Axiom, das expliziert werden sollte – oder selbst/nichtselbst dekonstruiert (etc.) werden muss.

Einzigartigkeit  –  Pluralität  –  Reduktion