First comes the concept yet it is the relationship between concept and it's design that forms the winning formation. Timing has a small Part to play. In essence we believe we are private people who display to the exterior what we will to do, but in the current form of societal life to which we belong since the spurn of individualism the polarity of public life exists a polarisation to which the only comment to be made one may say Therefore it can be said that our public lives are private and our private public echoes of the days of formal communication no longer exist we are learning to live with instantaneous communication infiltrating our everday life we did not envisage that so much of ourselves in fact would be exposed in all our interactions. Closed in spaces are vast in the western world while the space in which we exist most is in the interactions across many miles which we pass through each day within the blink of an eye, in our travels. In our individual lives a measure of privacy still dependant on proximity away from public affairs, which by far is easily achieved by shutting off from the world. When we unwind we are still linked by various means of communication But the point of affairs and manner at hand is that we aspire to be private individuals however there is a lesson to be capitulated, while the law itself characterises that none of us are really private indivduals to the extent of our conduct, lawfulness, and the legitimacy of life as unitary function of responsibility and duty over and above our significant people around us, there is still an all purpose and multiplicity in which we exist that won't be ignored. In fact it is this basic premise that we can live in private that binds individual selves to the arbitrary but sometimes important roles in civil life. Yet to condense this argument it is easier to say that like the arbitrary nature of dreams.. which are reversed and sometimes grounded in a reality that can be interpreted by inverting the meaning, such as in gestalt theory. The roads we take in society are albeit inversion of private and public, and the basis of leading a public life is to have a private one, or a private life, a public one. Therefore, we must summons that while contradictory our belief in a private individualistic world into which we retreat, and a public construction of 'us' which may not be interrogate with the actuality, the two must coexist by nature for one to be of primacy. It is when we reflect upon our public image into our conduct and initiate it as a single form of inquiry that we gain consciousness of ourselves. However we risk losing some of identity to gain what bhuddists coined to be 'no mind; or the trancendental.