I've more closely identified a separate and distinct operational thought structure that projects predictatory datricies (see my previous discussion on this topic) into amalgamate experience. After moving this structure within my physical and metaphysical reaches, I've come to understand its function in relation to an integrative thought model.
My head injuries caused the movement of minutely chipped pieces of skull. I've known this for a long time, even if a scan does not reveal such incredibly diminutive fragmentation. As a result, I could understand data only as it projected in my experience. I had no immediate method of knowing, understanding, or even realizing that such data may have projected unreliably. My understanding is that others have possessed and do possess a far stronger sense of genuity than I ever have (or else, of that I've ever been aware). It doesn't upset me, although it seems to continue to validate and, probably, furthers my feeling of being imprisoned by what I know while understanding that there's a disconnect between the active motivation of my desires and my actions themselves. That's just an observation. I usually do not do the things I love to do, and this is, or was, why. Most recently, the shame I felt coincident with possessing knowledge and understanding of matters I've been unable to put to active use has prevented me from realizing conventional, incremental growth. Instead, some aspects of my growth are exponential while others are either mild or entirely sedated, permanently or otherwise, as the case may be. This entry is more for me to explain this matter to myself than for others, about whom, in my view, likely do not require any of this. Nobody sustains the same injuries; likewise, nobody recovers identically (though similarly, perhaps, could be true).
I previously called this structure genuity. I needed to call it something before I could understand it; as is technically true for all knowledge, as it requires continuous iterative validations. As I experience it, genuity integrates both my interpretation of allegorical understandings, as multi-dimensionally realized (i.e., datricies that are not predictatory), and my separate and distinct understanding of my heretofore non-allegorizable understanding (predictatory and non-predictatory datricies). Such integration mitigates misunderstanding resulting from misinterpretations of externalities, bypassing evolving knowledge (it started to seem slow to me) in favor of involving understanding (far more reliable and quicker). Personally, I do not have time for the emotional waste coincident with a concentration solely on evolving knowledge that destroys, rather than fortifies, corpus, such as certain practices, or regressions, that I identify. Progressive practices make more sense. This further validates the importance of being oneself, as continuously self-identifying, rather than relying on feedback loops informed by externalities that use less reliable methodologies (as they may only be approximations) in relation to corpus. Only corpus identifies itself, after all.
Understandings propounded using genuity integrate into knowledge or realization via corporeal feedback, which then may propound energetically toward omnissive communication. It's not telepathy, but it sure looks like it, and I suppose it may be used as such. Personally, I'm not interested much in omnissive communication unless I'm actively performing music, though I also don't have any awareness as to whether this is something that is active through operation of focus or passively coincident with thought itself. In my view, it's illogical to use a feedback loop that relies on and confirms knowledge when the loop itself propounds something that isn't solely knowledge. Music, in my opinion, strikes a good balance there, as it integrates both allegorical and non-allegorical datricies.
In other words, the corporeal feedback that validates such previously non-allegorizable knowledge causes such to become "known" by virtue of communication between multi-layer awarenesses existing within (and even without) a body. To the extent genuity recognizes new data it helps focus generally. If such focus identifies as understanding, a nexus between what was not previously known and what is known forms, and reliable clarity is achieved. Expression confirms and validates this new knowledge.
The possible down-side to this is that realizability, in this regard, seems consciously to destroy motivations that require gaining knowledge slowly, or incrementally, in favor of more intensely fortified communicative methodologies that integrate understanding as continuously validating knowledge rather than relying on fixed data, which, as explained above and in a multiplicity of places elsewhere, is unreliable. Both knowledge and understanding are moving targets. I prefer to treat them that way. I prefer to concentrate on an involving understanding, comprised of both understanding and evolving knowledge, rather than only considering evolving knowledge. '¿Por qué no los dos?,' right?
