The essence of my existentiality, as a sentient structure, is made of ‘4′ non-integrated dimensional-noumena. According to both of my mental psyche and my soul (animating physical anatomy), as a dividual, my dimensional noumena cannot be integrated into a whole (summed) being/person, as is the case with individuals, in who’s mental framework is to obtain and maintain an integrated individuality (identity); consistently in pursuit in wanting to know what their cores (their centers) are: hence, the subjective and self-reflective words of who and what are their persistent and consistent endeavors to answer that most famous global question of The-Self (the-Ego/the “I”); and they are, “Who am I,” or, “What am I?” Also, according to The-Self, there are very well known global amplification phrases; and they are, “I am who I am,” or, “I am what I am:” They assert that the person who is uttering either both of these phrases are still giving an indirect testimony that he/she is still in question about one-self. The ‘who’ and ‘what’ words, that are used in the amplification phrases above, are subjective concepts that indirectly indicate that the person who utters them, is referring one-self‘s identity and individuality in question (open to debate; open to errors; open to negotiate; or open to transform/adapt/evolve) about one-self even though, it is utterly meant to be said and applied as a uniformed and completed self-confirmation. In contrast to just one of my dividual embodiment (my physical dimensional noumenon), those subjective ‘open in question‘ prone statements are instead emphasized, in such a way, that the person in of itself is just is: And thus the phrase, “IT is that IT is,” is most appropriate because the word that, instead of who and what, indicates that the person referred to in that amplification phrase is not open for debates, errors, negotiations and changes (as a psyche being that remains in uniformity); therefore, remaining immutable and impassive.
These are just some of my explanations to bring to comprehension that my being (psyche-being) is just one of a dividual of my dividuality, as opposed to an individual, in whereas one is made into whole (summed) and centered, with a core of some sort; all intermixed into a sole embodiment of singularity identity. My dividuality, instead, are made up of four separate dividuals (dimensional-noumena) that do not fuse or merge into an integral stratum, in which is normally referred to as an individual: They do, however, border side by side; but not in the sense of being collectively composed/sync in togetherness, but more like in simultaneous successions (in rows), each taking their own assisting turn, in a row, while fixed in (not in persistency, nor in consistency) but in constancy, in their divided sectors and grades. This is why terms like, wholesome, whole, centered, being cored and grounded, in terms of being, is utterly estranged to my dividuality: And because dividualism is always divided (in pieces), a dividual can then never fall to pieces, or become “diseased” (dis – eased): However, becoming ill or sick in my dividual of my physical dimensional noumenon, is imminent; but never “diseased.”
The following list of categories A, B, C and D are some disclosures of my ‘4′ dimensional-noumena, in order so that you, the reader, may at least grasp some gist to comprehend (or at least appreciate) my dividuality if you cannot at least relate (understand your-self ) with IT (my being): And they are:
A. The dimension of my