Phenomenologizing as body (Identity) and mind (Difference): Garlic is...

Garlic is, in philosophical terms, a metaphor and euphemism (or dysphemism, depending on which perspective one wants to take) for the default Higgs Boson (God Particle) in its Higgs Field. Garlic delivers non-Cartesian understanding of events as they happen: Life revealed in-process or as in Aristotle’s actuality (ενέργεια and/or ἐντελέχεια) without necessity of negation as way to clarify content (of differentiating Difference). Garlic demonstrates that Cartesian philosophy offers no experiential understanding of differentiating Difference, but only probable and possible nothingness as results of investigation: The unknown is the only given (to the investigator aka the empirical scientist) and the investigator is with certainty, at most, only probable and possible. In Cartesian discourse (of discovery) any (so-to-say) certainty of self is illusionary at best. Garlic, in its mereological conference or differentiating Difference, brings with it, with its deliciously malodorous waft, the ability to understand all religions, cultures, and scientific aspirations and aims without prejudice, and relegates self to mythological status…and understands or allows and accounts for an understanding of all probable and possible things (identity) given in the Cartesian efforts. Difference as it is the fundamental axis to all parts and whole relations is the only given known, and any and all unknowns in question are grounded in Garlic and not a self. Any Identity inference or presence (content of Difference) is therefore always unknown and, as such, given to empirical investigation: Investigations which takes place as Difference differentiates. Garlic reveals the first rule of logic, whereby everything which is probable and possible — the sum of all future tenses as guided by probable and possible pasts — occurs in the “=” of A=A. And this explains why “meta” is the chimerical, resonating (after) images of the experience still in experience: A. And this is what guarantees that what resonates is of what really happened and could yet happen. If A were not the floor whereby “=” is the sum of all future tenses as guided by probable and possible past tenses then no one object or subject could ever acknowledge itself from any and all other single moments. There would be no floor(ing) or A≠A. In Proposition XI (and its Proof and Corollary) in On The Nature and Origin of Mind, Spinoza struggles (and it is not the first time) to clarify this point.