We are aware that there is a persistent awareness within our recursive, biological process. This awareness in intelligible (or grounded) based on a context of performance.
Certain actions are performed, for example, for you to have the construct of awareness that you currently experience.
This construct is forced upon you. As a reader, you passively consume what is being actively argued.
The arguments are not clearly defined but that doesn’t matter. In certain context, clarity is presumed on a basis of explicit and universally understood arguments. Whose universality is measured by a standardized metric. But when you’re alone in your head, your body has a naturally sway to follow the best arguments, even if those arguments do not drape themselves in formality.
What we can consider regardless of formality is that context sways us. Context always provides the best arguments to organically consume our being.
Th context you’re drawn to is principally guided by aesthetics. An appreciation of what your biological process has been conditioned to find sublime. If you don’t experience dogma, the sublime is free of presumption. But the most relevant sublimation are always contextualized by a society that exist based on agreed presumptions.
To go against the presumptions of society, we have to make ourselves passive and vulnerable to arguments that seem foreign, potentially dangerous, and compelling.
The persistency of our awareness is a continuation of context measured in billions of years of astronomical phenomena, billions of years of evolution, millennia of cultural development, centuries of critical, intellectual inquiry, and however many years you are of cultural assimilation.
Through the years context changes. What stays persistent is the influence context has on whatever the context has come to define.
As an example, these words were contextualized through me based on a natural phenomena. The same natural phenomena integrates the context to your meaning. Your meaning, of existential significance, is a conditioned taste. These words taste like English words, for example. And the taste allows you to appreciate the words in a certain way. On one level, the appreciation is objective (each word has a strict definition, each sentence follows certain rules that can decipherable through learning). On another level, these words are only contextualized by you because you can apply subjectivity (eg emotions) to the context.
If you can change your emotions, you can re-arrange how you contextualize the meaning of these words. Or if you can change any other aspect of your subjectivity. Changing our aesthetic is autonomy. The same way an ability to change our ethics gives us autonomy. If our ethics prevents us from doing something, we can’t do it. If we can change our ethics, then the action we perform depends ultimately on a judgment of aesthetics (with reverberating consequence to the society aesthetic we belong or claim to).