In almost every scholastic essay I have authored, I was asked to give specific instance to the abstract argument I was making. It frustrates me that I cannot stay up in the higher hierachy of thinking, where Ideals grace me and I haven't to bother with the parts I drag and tread.The parts I feel should not exist-- but do.
Sometimes, most of the time, I feel as if something is lost when converting the abstract to the presentable. The personability of the thought, the clay of ideas we yield and mold in our minds, presses and becomes fit to the frame in which it was given birth. Frames clash, and this is reality; frames unite-- although never perfectly, and we find a larger conglomerate to clash. This is conglomerates of differentation.
But there is common knowledge, although never universal, and although nothing can ever be universal, this is the basis for specific instance and example.
I hate it.
Most of the time and sometimes I feel (strongly, with clinched fists, with pencil in agape) that when one trickles down from the abstract to circumstance, the circumstance may have only have happened because there is something essentially wrong with method of thought due to something essentially wrong to the outside world due to someone elses essentially wrong thought. We assume something when we go straight down.
And yet, left, right, wrong, left, right, STOP:
This is probably nothing without an example.
(didn't plagiarise: authored)