My collection of essays forms a single system of thought grounded in the “will to exist.” Its internal consistency, closure, and the fluctuations in its semantic definitions are often subject to criticism. Internal consistency tends to induce self-reference, becoming circular. Such circularity within a single system creates a sense of closure. Furthermore, fluctuations in definition can obscure the effective scope of the system—this is why these traits are targeted by critics who question the very foundation upon which this thought relies.
However, these characteristics should not be viewed as inherent flaws. Rather, they can be seen as mutually complementary elements that overcome their own limitations.
The defining feature of semantic definition in this system is the “fluctuation” that occurs when vocabulary enters a causal relationship with context. This fluctuation does not indicate a lack of foundation; instead, it brings about the openness of the system. Moreover, the internal consistency of this system does not signify closure; the consistency itself serves as the system’s foundation.
When people question the foundation of a thought, they typically expect something unshakable and fixed—a point beyond which no further questioning is possible. If such a thing were to exist, one could no longer think past it. But does such a foundation truly exist? If it did, that is precisely what would entail closure: the closure of semantic definition. When a definition is closed, it cannot maintain any relationships. Yet, as long as a word exists within the system of language, such isolation is impossible.
The polysemy (multiplicity of meaning) of a word is emotion itself, and emotion is driven by the directionality of attention and value judgment. For instance, when the word “sad” is used, can we say it exclusively represents sorrow without any fluctuation? The answer is no. While “sad” expresses grief, it can also be a mere assertion of one’s feelings, an expression of sympathy, or even used ironically to mock that very sadness. Thus, emotion is a value judgment born from where one’s attention is directed.
When semantic fluctuation occurs in this manner—moving, for example, from a system of “sympathy” to a system of “ridicule”—attention shifts levels from one system to another. This is the openness of the system.
If semantic fluctuation provides this openness, how then does the system’s internal consistency connect to the outside world? It does so through the manifestation of difference via comparison. Any entity regarded as a “system” inherently possesses internal consistency. The real question is how that system connects to the exterior. In this system of thought, that connection is achieved through the fluctuation of meaning and the emergence of difference through systemic comparison.
