I come home from work last night, to walk in on a party at my house. Hahaha, it was pretty good.
Luckily, I had some beer in the fridge from a few nights ago.

I ended up having a really weird conversation, I was talking to my roomate about some random tangent in philosophy, when I said that, “Modern philosophy is the best.” Loaded question, I know… but the moderns had a really interesting perspective of the human subject and experience. In which the concept of ‘will’ is heavily embedded in human psychology and ego.  
Although I don’t want to get deep into explaining my thought, my roomate was inquisitive about my remark, especially when I said (drunkenly) that, “universals are awesome”.
LMAO. Me and my big mouth.

Kay, so lets go through the logic of why I made this ridiculous claim.
I basically said that, since we have to constitute ourselves in this world (primarily due to the fact that there is no overarching meaning, or signifier for our world) we must will these stand alone maxims (universals), that are ultimately groundless. These maxims can be anything, whatever world I am thrown into, this does not delineate me from other people as well, it’s something standard. The necessary point is that, through time, our values grow and shave, they cannot dissappear. As we age (and I’m sure many can speak to this) we increasingly are cognicant of our values, and why we hold them to the level in which we do. These principles that we internalize and adopt in our own subjective manner continuously persist, regardless of how they transform, change, or alter. Something that I wish to highlight is - these basic principles stay the same through time. These values are so engrained, it’s much more difficult to forget them; for example, to stop doing an activity is like forcing a habit, it is not easily forgotten. Much like customary habituations, these principles stay around in one’s life for a long time, they may change in some minute detail, but the general form is still present.
It is also because we constitute these ourselves that ensures the legitimacy . It would be senseless if I could just go around adopting ideals, there would be nothing that persisted. However, there will come a point in time where we re-evaluate our values and principles. It is here where values are redefined and reappropriated into our individual value system, but the core is this value system which we learn, then shave off the excess as we age. That being said, our experience re-modifies itself in many different aspects, but they can only be re-modified.

This lead me to another thought, I’m noticing a problem in our  conception of the present.

What is the present? A lot of post-modern philosophy points to this as a space that cannot be described, yet describes everything at once. Although I may be sympathetic to this viewpoint, I believe that the present is always a re-modification of the past, and here’s a terrible explanation of why:
Experience is entirely based on past, even reflection is a necessary contingent of this. Everything that we do, know, act, see, view, all becomes past. In just saying past I’m always already in the past. It is all I know, for before my eyes could very well change with the blink of an eye. I’m not trying to be literal about this. I just see that the present cannot be analyzed in any particular form, we must do it in the past. Continental philosophy shows this absense-presence debate, primarily caused by language. To say that I’m doing an action requires my past experiences to bring this action to light, to again be called back into the past, again into language.
The present is just the moment, it’s just doing what it’s doing. We cannot describe it, so we must go back, to use the past to make sense of it.
We do this a lot as well, when we interact with people, when we practice things.
I said this to my roomate, for a more concrete perspective:

my roomates, before I left work were freestyling at home to random hip hop base lines. Now, both of them were okay at doing this action, one moreso than the other… but my reason why this is so important to past, and experience, is practice. Practice, like experience can only be presented because of the past. So, it took practice for my roomates to freestyle with precision, dexterity, correct rythum, linguistics, etc. SO I’m basically saying that the past constitutes our present, which cannot be described at all. Being able to competently rhyme without any problems takes practice (learned in the past) to come to life in the present. But everything that is understood is then internalized (again, back to the past). We can project forward as well, but to put names or descriptions of things in the moment is to do the ultimate injustice. Accepting the moment for what it is, without violently inscribing language, thus ultimately losing the moment, is the only action required. It is where everything just happens, because it can, there is a fluidity to the moment, and once that becomes analyzed, from what we can see, we’re still farthest away. The question “how can you do that” is unanswerable, it can only be described through the method, but not what happened within that moment.
This is where I bagan to have my interesting conversation with this girl.
I used her as an example to explain the alterity of the other, and once I start to inscribe, I become violent. But, most importantly, I used my past experience to interact with her, although I can never know her fully, my impression of her is based on past experiences. To judge her from a moment perspective is to do the violence that I just explained, but it’s something that we cannot help. It is a craft that must be worked on, like all activities, conversation, understanding, acting, living, can only be practiced, and grown forward.

I needed to get these ideas developed, this is something to be worked on more.
Experience, practice, action, thought, reflection, are all constituted in the past.
I just realized how Jamesian this reflection has sounded, that and Nietzsche, with some Hume and Descartes.

J.Sulls.