Ambiguous concept determination, in  the sense  of linguistic or  logically tautological sense ,directs to its inviolability, though its spirit  shows completely diferrent.A history of science points  that  structure of the concept   is rather violent-tempered ,like language of music,or symbols that  art is based on .Indeed,is  the notion “really deductive” from  our intelligence; Is the structure established  by set of  objective criteria,or  is it  just  a misproduct  of  instance of the mind that quantum physicists define as pure subquantum game of nature.If the second statement shows  correct,the notion is nothing but flawlessly sculpted  trace of rational daydream, its truliness is nothing but pure shadow of memory.Although it is possible to approach this claim in the highlight of absolute true,we must  doubt the fact that  it  is being succesfull in real world-I’ve got all the rights to deny its trueliness and relevancy.,As for this,my own analysis  seems to be spoiling my  claim. It is becoming rather ridiculous that  I’m using  the notion to prove its own  illusory.

Both   scientific and philosophical advancement represented almost identical controversal concept. Although metaphysics pleaded the case , the result of opponing the contemporary science is quite uncertain,to presume the boundaries of  human understanding of the world. The concept  of any metaphysical  game  is represented by the  fact that  the  visible is just an illusion.The essence of everything visible lies in entity,invisible  and incomprehensible ,whose absolute nature exists in every visible and tangible thing in the Universe.The singularity that mind takes for granted,from paper lying on the table to quasars and intergalactic dust,appears to be the way of accomplishing  the idea of absolute. Does this concept seems to be sensible at all? If I deny  each individual thing, I wonder if  my abstraction is ,regardless to how developed it is,capable of shaping the idea of absolute.In this case,metaphysics fails the test,not only because of its inconsistence,but also for pleading for this stage of knowledge,which is too complicated .If  metaphysicist is  to define the absolute, he will tell you-it excelss everything existing by its character and essence.Anaximander’s apeiron,Plato’s idea,Spinosa’s substance,Leibniz’s monade,contemporary physicists superstrings represent the same  rather confusing  notion.Out of single thing,disregarding its form,I generalize and deny the thing being a starting point-that is the way absolute has been created..If a physicist would be demanded to precisely define the idea of absolute,he would be as condemned as Giordano Bruno,aside from his suffer being greater than whole history of philosophy.

What  does interface intelligence mean?Whether is it a process of meaning translation ,or process of giving the meaning to certain idea ,in which consciousness,selfhood and memory are being related.As for it, defining  the creation of concept exclusively belongs  to the domain of empirical gadget.In this case ,it ought to be defined as interface- conceptual sphere of  cognition.Neither  there is  ready-made meaning,nor it is  situated in domain of consciousness.What does this mean? There is no idea of meaning,in short,the meaning is not a part of consciousness,despite the fact that the consciousness is  an interface which carries out the meaning,.Its definition,or to be more precise,rational definition,  has been given  as  cathegorical imperative to the level of human  acting marked  with  its own identity.

Although every act contains awareness of  something done,or  of something  that better be done,a phantasmagoric character of meaning   shows that the  cause of acting  stays blurry to my analysis,no matter how esteemed  psychoanalyst I am.For instance, I  am  either aware of the fact that I want to stand up from  the chair and take the book  from the shelf,or how long it  lasted ,from the beginning to the end. It is obvious  that it was done willingly.But the critic doubts that awareness does not necessarily means possession of idea about the origin of knowledge.What is the cause of my action-pleasantness ,incomfort or change of pressure-I haven’t got the answer;Recalling my memory wouldn”t help either.But,If I randomly choose some of my memory entities,and specify it absolute,It will reduce the tension I feel.Finally, it all boils down to this very conclusion :analitical method  cannot reach the original  behavioral driving force  .Analysis “decodes” the memory by depersonalizing each part of it.In a word, If we consider it as  own segments of continuance,our memory is completely impersonal.The more it is infinitesimal,the less  memory shape individuality  is. An obvious example could be  found in  information technology . Nevertheless,a quantity of possible mistakes and their  superficial appearance in this case is proportionally  bigger as the processor works.As for it, we can come to  metaphysical conclusion that the world we specified in fact either does not exist,nor it belongs to us.What makes me an individual is  an independent memory lost in its own collective definition.More specific  review says that an average human being  consists of 10⁴⁰  subatomic particles,considering the” individual” aspect of subatomic world, then every particle entity caries its own  material character and collective usefulness.The problem is rather metaphysical, concerning   subatomic entities collective review in shape of human being  about being absolutely  confronted with its individuality  physically,chemically and theologically.

 illustration of this problem

Totality is ,exclusively, a pure  structural appearance of  its own constituents.The structure of totality is being given analytically, and the element  related to it is variable. Ultimately, it is possible for constituent to be defined as phantasmagoric totality predicate .Idealist might  have wrongly concluded that the totality is just a  product of thinking. Summarizing this analysis can lead us to conclusion about the totality being finite and given by direct analytical or purely perceptive approach. It is impossible for totality constituents to become obvious but as absence of  totality selfconsciousness. Conscientious and traditionally educated reader  might withdraw from these lines:facing the truth is far less painful than  disturbing the basics of knowledge.I am going to ask the reader to participate in my trying to achieve  introduction  of the discipline.This  area  of knowledge  calls off the entire scientific principle of  finding out the reality within its own language of defining the research area.