The Reconciliation of Subjects and Objects

In order to not have reduced our aims to simplicities and chance occurrences, we mark well the highlights of our life, the color and wonder; the nuance and subtlety speaks for itself, or it does not at all—regardless of what we think we know.

To have divested full interest in the content lain before you, both subject and objects:  moments collected; some, ever-so-fleeting, others, timelessly historical, still, others more formulaic, and still some, more peering at the elements, I have otherwise referred to such things as Poetry, Reference, Prose, and Research, tagged here and there.

We do not incline to such choices often.  They are an investment of too great risk, though we may be fond of the prize.  Instead, we learn to search and filter for our terms of agreement.

How we weigh our words proves the accuracy of our scales, the powers of our perception and our capacity to adapt.  It is to say “these are the universals by which we might judge”, so, read, in every sense of the word—be it with your eyes, your ears, your hands or your heart, find your reflection in the universe of another soul.  By nothing else would there be honest competition.


“Reconciliation” is here a colloquialization for the phenomenon of colloquialization.

It is to freely establish (relation). And as simply as does a line-break.


In purpose, this site is to mark the spontaneity of order and beauty, that one truly does “grow” in his understanding and so, possesses knowledge greater than he knows: mighty then is an honest record. (Or, a knowledge base.)

In fashion, we expect and anticipate this, the surprise, though we may disregard its foundation, the viable basis for an aesthetic.

Such— diabolicalism on the everyday —demands guided restoration, full reconciliation.

There is no moment too subtle or energy to waste.


Reconciliation, in a grand sense is a theory of meaning. Though this may sound as though we were to say the meaning of meaning, it is not. It may suffice to say “a theory of theory”, if one can suppose there is heredity to thought, a conscious universality of beginnings and ends. We don’t generally like this last bet, hence the reconciliation.

In any case, reconciliation, like any process, is of little value unless it is replicable. (Or, honorable, depending on your profession.) A theory of meaning is the same.

This is not to suppose a theory is weighed and valued only by its contenders, though some will argue it; it is to build, seek greater framework, bring depth and cultivate.

Reconciliation is best described between centralized (global) and local contexts of colloquialization; metaphor and ownership (subjects) come from “far away” localities, objects and reference from centralization.

Hence, a liminal stage, a middle path, must exist.

In broader terms, we can appeal to our senses of personification, as though the east and the west were in disputation where the sun should stay, then, deciding to share the time, one brings the night, the other, day.

In similar terms, “meaning”, we can say, functions in this way.

Though sententious to some, this theory, or, rather, this reconciliation will appease the empiricist, eventually.  Through the “empire” that is language, which he must admit he cannot ever rule over.  This stipulation, however ambiguous, is to be exposed through the research section of this website, though it is alluded to in various forms throughout.