is this a truthful doctrine?

All social phenomena are a product of:

A= A persons existence (1)

B= Their environment (2)

(1) (Physically & mentally, essentially their being)*
(2) This refers to anything external to A. It is their surroundings, other people etc. This will necessarily constitute other social phenomena.*

*This is supposed to be a dynamic interaction that cannot be quantitatively realized. The description is intended to refer an objective state of affairs and the central purpose is to show how social phenomena, broadly, are produced.

Considering this, a priori, social phenomena are guaranteed to exist. In addition to this, knowing its constituent parts A & B and noting (or emphasising) the individuality of A in B,

It will be sustained, generated and essentially mediated by:

X .a person’s perception of their existence within the environment

And by including “environment” we must therefore include in X

X. Social phenomena

Therefore if social phenomena are guaranteed to exist as a product of A and B and be dependant on a dynamic relationship with X (a person’s perception in the environment) then social phenomena should be restricted to A and B with regard to X. The “regard” to X ensures we note that X generates social phenomena based on perception which is naturally arbitrary (but somehow seems consistent) because of the single, individual A within the shared B.

This is my doctrine of existence.

The problem is that social phenomena (X) do not refer to themselves as subjective accounts. This difficulty is language, our perception (X) of reality doesn’t suggest subjectivity and thus our language doesn’t make that discrepancy. Language thus has no self referential gauge that points to words or ideas and indicates their validity to reality.

The outcome of this state of affairs, as our social evolution has progressed, is that our social phenomenon, our structures of organisation, morality and language do not take into account their foundations (A, B, X) and therefore their ultimately, restricted relationship with regards to actual reality.

It is as though progress has thought that there is an A and there is a B. The existence of X is negligible. Or we could say, and then a single perception (X) and it (X) is right. X somehow reflects some objective and tangible ideology or claim to truth.

The only truth it seems is our descriptions of A and X and B.

It is essential that our accounts of reality (X) assert themselves as subjective accounts in B.