...

...

But this is a well-established unsolvable problem in > philosophy. It is impossible to examine your fundamental > ideas for they are what you stand on to examine. What > you think are basic are at least one step up from fundamental.

But you can cheat if there is a feedback. Suppose that an external party (as opposed to multiple personalities housed in the same wetware) diagnoses you with attribute A (eg. "you write in disconnected fashion and often mention "state") which you neither understand nor agree with. You then, blindly, do the opposite of A (~A) << George Castanza tried this once and it worked well.

...

(write closely related sentences and never mention state). This is called acting and many can do it on regular basis. -- Damn, I must stop referring to Kubrick. <<

It sounds like a similar problem to freudian psychiatry when it attempts to examine the unconscious.Or booting up (bootstraps) a computer from nothing.Problems of philosophy; Mmm, reminds me that someone,(wittgenstein?)once said philosophizing could be compared to having a fever (that needed curing.) Damn,I must stop referring to Clarke.