But it is clear that the word, or rather its contents, does not exist of itself and never existed as such. Formed as the result of a complex combination of phenomena, it makes sense only in the aggregate of surrounding phenomena. The word itself has its certain contents only in the position condition, when the word described the situation for some time, remains stable and constant. In this case, the content of the word remains understandable and worth it to say, as soon as it becomes clear what the situation it reflects, describes.
But in the position relationship when the situation becomes specific when a violation of parity in the interaction of actors, the word also loses its well-defined content. But since the word always has its content, without this it does not exist, a situation the relationship loses its rigor. This means that the previous content of the word is not very accurate. But since the external situation never changes radically, it is always frontier, and the content of the word often becomes the edge with the other contents of the same or different words.
But without fail it makes sense in the context of other words, that means in the context of other phenomena. With this approach, the word itself seems to not exist. But it is not, it exists, but in a more General context, when it reflects a stable existence. ie state. But in this as in the changed circumstances, it no longer solves the task, i.e. does not describe a new situation, at least completely. In this case, it must be correlated with other words (usually not more than three or five in his immediate surroundings). And only in this case becomes the true content, i.e. content that adequately describes the new situation.
![]()
But in the position relationship when the situation becomes specific when a violation of parity in the interaction of actors, the word also loses its well-defined content. But since the word always has its content, without this it does not exist, a situation the relationship loses its rigor. This means that the previous content of the word is not very accurate. But since the external situation never changes radically, it is always frontier, and the content of the word often becomes the edge with the other contents of the same or different words.
But without fail it makes sense in the context of other words, that means in the context of other phenomena. With this approach, the word itself seems to not exist. But it is not, it exists, but in a more General context, when it reflects a stable existence. ie state. But in this as in the changed circumstances, it no longer solves the task, i.e. does not describe a new situation, at least completely. In this case, it must be correlated with other words (usually not more than three or five in his immediate surroundings). And only in this case becomes the true content, i.e. content that adequately describes the new situation.