Old Fashioned Genitals Post
Emmed ash (—) Nowing Theta
Emmed ash (—) Nowing Theta finger brashing, break finger crisht blashbrash— Peasants in minimal roles
Place them higher than that point we find that things begin to break apart
They in their location is the glue that sticks out — in our spaceship
It isnNNot— in the report but the Spaceship has folds
Innumerable folds. There are folds in the wings and spiraling undefinable into insulation
Grant Answers Questions from 'Le Bac' #1
(im)Possibilities and
Configuring the Absurd
Configuring the Absurd
"Is it absurd to desire the Impossible?"
This question poses several openings for understanding, so it might be best for me to explain which path I might take from it in order to locate my answer. For such a short text, we'll look to the important words; absurd, desire and impossible.
The first, Absurd, suggests something contravening Reason or Logic. If something were Rational, that is within a system of understanding built on incontrovertible experience, then it must necessary exclude the Impossible. If it were logical, then it would be included in a realm of possibilities defines by its lack of paradoxes, which as a negative thought system could include in its present understanding (and thus utilization) many things that haven't been identified as paradox, even though they may be. At this stage, one can say simple that the category of impossibility is essentially at odds with either of these terms. Yet this is too closed a reading perhaps, because it excludes results that may be verifiable good, and therefore rational to pursue, yet are themselves not rational. We will deal with this in turn.
The second term is Desire. To Desire implies a level of agency on the part of the desiring-agent that is perhaps misplaced. Even if we accept individual agency on some level, Desire supposes an urge beyond the rational (which, as before, suggests that "absurdity" is not the right category for this question). Yet it also supposes a propulsive drive that exists outside the conscious and here we find the rub: a measure of "absurdity", even charitably defined, retains a negative value when applied to decision-making, the "positive" realm of the 'not-rational' or 'not-logical', thus sprouting dialectically from their other. If no such alternative exists, or if the reality of making the choice is absent (or impossible), we would always fail to categorize the choice in such a binary. It would then seem that, on the face of the question, any desire is outside the absurd because it would require a location that can contain logical or rational desires and our currently conceived illogical and irrational desires at the same time, while the term desire itself suggests both a single substance, a uniquely non-rational one (insofar as it continues to define the category non-rational, though perhaps we might revisit this point later) . Yet, again, we are faced with the pragmatic consequence that a desire might cause unpalatable consequences, and we would find these to be in a more verifiable or alterable circumstance to be absurd. We might also find that rational maneuvers can be instituted in order to circumvent these desires, alter these desires, or minimize those we consider agents in their own desiring, perhaps with that very label "absurd", conditioning the category 'desire' while remaining on its exterior.
The last term, Impossible, may be the most difficult to parse because our common notion is atemporal, that is something that is impossible will never happen. This may be a helpful definition in most circumstances, but in these tight quarters, a better definition is preferred; that which is not possible in the immediate circumstance. For we can consider the telephone to be a distinct "possibility" only because 1) it exists and 2) there exists an entire backdrop of technologies and practices that allow it to exist. Absent either element, for instance in the Middle Ages, the telephone not only becomes impossible but an absurdity. An argument, however, that stops at this point nullifies its use by ensuring that only perfectly understood circumstances (perfect knowledge of the past and present) and perfect knowledge of the future consequences of the present configuration. Requiring either of these, much less both, renders the notion of "impossible" itself "impossible", or at least unintelligible and unhelpful. However, in light of the appearance of the term "Desire" in the sentence as it relates to Impossible, we can impute a level of "understood impossibility", something that one comprehends is not possible, whether it is or not, and then chooses to desire anyway.
If these are the appropriate uses of each term, it seems we are left with two significant options. The passages under "Absurd" and "Desire" suggest a possibly pragmatic reframing of the issue. The question would not longer remain "Is it absurd to desire the impossible", but "Are there rationally defensible 'goods' that result from the decision to pursue that which appears not to be possible?" Despite the reframing, this does not provide us an obvious or necessary response, because there seems to be little connecting "possibility" and "desirability" sub specie rationalitas. For instance, a desire with "rationally" indefensible results like Universal Annihilation would be absurd regardless of its possibility. Similarly, there is nothing in desiring alone, as we traditionally conceive it, that seems to produce possibility. Yet desires have effects. Here we can consider two types of effects, 1) direct effects where simply the desire for a circumstance or configuration produces an action intended to create the possibility of its becoming, and 2) ecological effects, where the desire produces in a subject a circumstance that makes the impossibility more possible: the desire to see God in the afterlife as a reward for military service in defense of a rational Republic, for instance in the French and American Revolutions, where a slight increase in fervor spread over a battalion can shift a result. This is exquisitely illustrated in Che Guevara's foco theory of revolutionary action that suggests that the pursuit of revolution may be the most important ingredient in a future revolution, regardless of the current conditions in which the revolutionary finds himself. It appears to be unsolvable at this point without some more content with which to measure the absurdity or non-absurdity of the premise of desire.
The last term, Impossible, suggests an alternative to this limited pragmatic approach. Here we find an epistemological stance, where the "desirer", whether an agent or not, attempts to rationally consider themselves justified in presuming simultaneously that they are qualified to consider the limits of their immediate circumstances, while being unqualified to consider the limits of their immediate circumstances. One might find connections between this and a form of rationalist skepticism, but this seems to get outside of those boundaries by allowing, for instance, for Descartes' "Mad Genius" who has designed the universe in order to trick us, or holding out a possibility for the nullification of the Cogito (to keep this in a quintessentially rationalist realm) and suggesting that, in our most extreme formulation, "Whatever I consider as possibility requires that I exist in order to consider it, yet I may be mistaken, I may not exist, and therefore I find it rational to desire nonexistence while thinking." This is a highly problematic form of thought. The ability to consider possible might be occurring in a figure whose possible-considering ability is lacking or inverted, which suggests that it would be irrational for them at an existential level. One sees here how the Cartesian paradigm goes very nearly to the ground with its bizarre perspective on rational inquiry. If, however, contra Descartes, we can consider a certain level of reality as necessarily confirmed in order to operate intelligibly without being a "rational" or ground notion as such, and further, as a result we consider whatever level of knowledge we do achieve to be both provisional, based in the immediate circumstance, and "soft", which is to say never felt in any absolute degree, ungrounded. For this circumstance to be rational, we must insist on a notion of the intelligible universe as confined within sensory boundaries that are smaller than the totality of all things at all perspectives at a given moment. We must further insist on an empirical claim, alluded to earlier, that there exists evidence that what was once impossible has, after that moment, become possible. This suggests that even a quite highly attuned comprehension of possibilities in the immediate term can dispose he who comprehends to irrationally extend that comprehension further that might be expected. In fact, because the interaction of such a vast number of elements that create any "total moment", it may be a practical impossibility to adequately consider anything beyond the immediate. At this level, it appear that it would be entirely rational, considering the "soft" nature of definite principles, the broad array of such principles, the limitations of possible sensory experience and the evidence regarding historical pronouncements about the possibility or impossibility of any future event, to desire something that appears to be impossible but could, in fact, be possible. A more extreme version of possibility, imminent becoming, suggests even a further value to a soft epistemology, because in the occurring of the impossibility, even the inactive desirer will have a desire appropriate to the new configuration of the universe, while those with rational expectations are ill-equipped. One thinks of the perverse combination (or is it?) of Derrida's notion of History as the arrival of a totally other, and the neo-conservative preparation for a seemingly impossible invasion of Iraq made real in the aftermath of 9/11.
There is one last figure who needs to be considered, however, before we place this issue at rest, and in this figure we find that our presupposed notions are perhaps fatally flawed. In Spinoza, the near-contemporary of Descartes, we find a robust notion of two of our terms, Desire and (im)Possibility. Here, Spinoza suggests that an adequately configured mind would necessarily desire to be able to achieve a perfect knowledge of a certain mode of existence, and having achieved this state ("Understanding"), would through this perfect knowledge extend its configuration eventually to all things in all ways. To limit his inquiry as it regards to this question, we must consider that the future, the realm in which the metaphorical quantum wave of not-possibility collapses into either being or impossibility, is a realm dependent in some ways on the contemporary knowledge of the contemporary. For Spinoza, a higher level of contemporary knowledge would produce not an overestimation of the future applicability of the contemporary knowledge, but would inform he who Understood precisely of the limitations of this knowledge, or put slightly differently, knowledge is in two parts, the knowledge itself, and the nature of that knowledge in relation to its configurations. In this circumstance, one could not desire the impossible, because it would 1) only be a known impossibility with perfect knowledge of the future, 2) be undesirable at the level of its self-nullification. Inversely put, 1) if one desired that one thought was an impossibility and it had positive future effects such as the coming of the impossibility, then it would only have been a false impossibility after all. 2) if one could not know and assumed without evidence an impossibility in order to desire it than one would be overreaching ones epistemic boundaries needlessly because a desired possibility (even if incorrectly appraised) would exert more effort on the subject's part due to its plausible being. 3) If one knew the impossibility of a thing and continued to desire it, one could only be considered a nihilist who rejects available Understanding in order to attack Understanding itself. The first two are absurd. The last returns us to the above discussion of Pragmatic production, and can only be measured in its absurdity in that it attacks the root condition that must exist in order to allow for the possibility of a Absurd at all. Therefore, if we allow that a term Absurd legitimately exists, we must finally allow that it would be that term if we decided with knowledge or without to pursue that which is impossible.
The first, Absurd, suggests something contravening Reason or Logic. If something were Rational, that is within a system of understanding built on incontrovertible experience, then it must necessary exclude the Impossible. If it were logical, then it would be included in a realm of possibilities defines by its lack of paradoxes, which as a negative thought system could include in its present understanding (and thus utilization) many things that haven't been identified as paradox, even though they may be. At this stage, one can say simple that the category of impossibility is essentially at odds with either of these terms. Yet this is too closed a reading perhaps, because it excludes results that may be verifiable good, and therefore rational to pursue, yet are themselves not rational. We will deal with this in turn.
The second term is Desire. To Desire implies a level of agency on the part of the desiring-agent that is perhaps misplaced. Even if we accept individual agency on some level, Desire supposes an urge beyond the rational (which, as before, suggests that "absurdity" is not the right category for this question). Yet it also supposes a propulsive drive that exists outside the conscious and here we find the rub: a measure of "absurdity", even charitably defined, retains a negative value when applied to decision-making, the "positive" realm of the 'not-rational' or 'not-logical', thus sprouting dialectically from their other. If no such alternative exists, or if the reality of making the choice is absent (or impossible), we would always fail to categorize the choice in such a binary. It would then seem that, on the face of the question, any desire is outside the absurd because it would require a location that can contain logical or rational desires and our currently conceived illogical and irrational desires at the same time, while the term desire itself suggests both a single substance, a uniquely non-rational one (insofar as it continues to define the category non-rational, though perhaps we might revisit this point later) . Yet, again, we are faced with the pragmatic consequence that a desire might cause unpalatable consequences, and we would find these to be in a more verifiable or alterable circumstance to be absurd. We might also find that rational maneuvers can be instituted in order to circumvent these desires, alter these desires, or minimize those we consider agents in their own desiring, perhaps with that very label "absurd", conditioning the category 'desire' while remaining on its exterior.
The last term, Impossible, may be the most difficult to parse because our common notion is atemporal, that is something that is impossible will never happen. This may be a helpful definition in most circumstances, but in these tight quarters, a better definition is preferred; that which is not possible in the immediate circumstance. For we can consider the telephone to be a distinct "possibility" only because 1) it exists and 2) there exists an entire backdrop of technologies and practices that allow it to exist. Absent either element, for instance in the Middle Ages, the telephone not only becomes impossible but an absurdity. An argument, however, that stops at this point nullifies its use by ensuring that only perfectly understood circumstances (perfect knowledge of the past and present) and perfect knowledge of the future consequences of the present configuration. Requiring either of these, much less both, renders the notion of "impossible" itself "impossible", or at least unintelligible and unhelpful. However, in light of the appearance of the term "Desire" in the sentence as it relates to Impossible, we can impute a level of "understood impossibility", something that one comprehends is not possible, whether it is or not, and then chooses to desire anyway.
If these are the appropriate uses of each term, it seems we are left with two significant options. The passages under "Absurd" and "Desire" suggest a possibly pragmatic reframing of the issue. The question would not longer remain "Is it absurd to desire the impossible", but "Are there rationally defensible 'goods' that result from the decision to pursue that which appears not to be possible?" Despite the reframing, this does not provide us an obvious or necessary response, because there seems to be little connecting "possibility" and "desirability" sub specie rationalitas. For instance, a desire with "rationally" indefensible results like Universal Annihilation would be absurd regardless of its possibility. Similarly, there is nothing in desiring alone, as we traditionally conceive it, that seems to produce possibility. Yet desires have effects. Here we can consider two types of effects, 1) direct effects where simply the desire for a circumstance or configuration produces an action intended to create the possibility of its becoming, and 2) ecological effects, where the desire produces in a subject a circumstance that makes the impossibility more possible: the desire to see God in the afterlife as a reward for military service in defense of a rational Republic, for instance in the French and American Revolutions, where a slight increase in fervor spread over a battalion can shift a result. This is exquisitely illustrated in Che Guevara's foco theory of revolutionary action that suggests that the pursuit of revolution may be the most important ingredient in a future revolution, regardless of the current conditions in which the revolutionary finds himself. It appears to be unsolvable at this point without some more content with which to measure the absurdity or non-absurdity of the premise of desire.
The last term, Impossible, suggests an alternative to this limited pragmatic approach. Here we find an epistemological stance, where the "desirer", whether an agent or not, attempts to rationally consider themselves justified in presuming simultaneously that they are qualified to consider the limits of their immediate circumstances, while being unqualified to consider the limits of their immediate circumstances. One might find connections between this and a form of rationalist skepticism, but this seems to get outside of those boundaries by allowing, for instance, for Descartes' "Mad Genius" who has designed the universe in order to trick us, or holding out a possibility for the nullification of the Cogito (to keep this in a quintessentially rationalist realm) and suggesting that, in our most extreme formulation, "Whatever I consider as possibility requires that I exist in order to consider it, yet I may be mistaken, I may not exist, and therefore I find it rational to desire nonexistence while thinking." This is a highly problematic form of thought. The ability to consider possible might be occurring in a figure whose possible-considering ability is lacking or inverted, which suggests that it would be irrational for them at an existential level. One sees here how the Cartesian paradigm goes very nearly to the ground with its bizarre perspective on rational inquiry. If, however, contra Descartes, we can consider a certain level of reality as necessarily confirmed in order to operate intelligibly without being a "rational" or ground notion as such, and further, as a result we consider whatever level of knowledge we do achieve to be both provisional, based in the immediate circumstance, and "soft", which is to say never felt in any absolute degree, ungrounded. For this circumstance to be rational, we must insist on a notion of the intelligible universe as confined within sensory boundaries that are smaller than the totality of all things at all perspectives at a given moment. We must further insist on an empirical claim, alluded to earlier, that there exists evidence that what was once impossible has, after that moment, become possible. This suggests that even a quite highly attuned comprehension of possibilities in the immediate term can dispose he who comprehends to irrationally extend that comprehension further that might be expected. In fact, because the interaction of such a vast number of elements that create any "total moment", it may be a practical impossibility to adequately consider anything beyond the immediate. At this level, it appear that it would be entirely rational, considering the "soft" nature of definite principles, the broad array of such principles, the limitations of possible sensory experience and the evidence regarding historical pronouncements about the possibility or impossibility of any future event, to desire something that appears to be impossible but could, in fact, be possible. A more extreme version of possibility, imminent becoming, suggests even a further value to a soft epistemology, because in the occurring of the impossibility, even the inactive desirer will have a desire appropriate to the new configuration of the universe, while those with rational expectations are ill-equipped. One thinks of the perverse combination (or is it?) of Derrida's notion of History as the arrival of a totally other, and the neo-conservative preparation for a seemingly impossible invasion of Iraq made real in the aftermath of 9/11.
There is one last figure who needs to be considered, however, before we place this issue at rest, and in this figure we find that our presupposed notions are perhaps fatally flawed. In Spinoza, the near-contemporary of Descartes, we find a robust notion of two of our terms, Desire and (im)Possibility. Here, Spinoza suggests that an adequately configured mind would necessarily desire to be able to achieve a perfect knowledge of a certain mode of existence, and having achieved this state ("Understanding"), would through this perfect knowledge extend its configuration eventually to all things in all ways. To limit his inquiry as it regards to this question, we must consider that the future, the realm in which the metaphorical quantum wave of not-possibility collapses into either being or impossibility, is a realm dependent in some ways on the contemporary knowledge of the contemporary. For Spinoza, a higher level of contemporary knowledge would produce not an overestimation of the future applicability of the contemporary knowledge, but would inform he who Understood precisely of the limitations of this knowledge, or put slightly differently, knowledge is in two parts, the knowledge itself, and the nature of that knowledge in relation to its configurations. In this circumstance, one could not desire the impossible, because it would 1) only be a known impossibility with perfect knowledge of the future, 2) be undesirable at the level of its self-nullification. Inversely put, 1) if one desired that one thought was an impossibility and it had positive future effects such as the coming of the impossibility, then it would only have been a false impossibility after all. 2) if one could not know and assumed without evidence an impossibility in order to desire it than one would be overreaching ones epistemic boundaries needlessly because a desired possibility (even if incorrectly appraised) would exert more effort on the subject's part due to its plausible being. 3) If one knew the impossibility of a thing and continued to desire it, one could only be considered a nihilist who rejects available Understanding in order to attack Understanding itself. The first two are absurd. The last returns us to the above discussion of Pragmatic production, and can only be measured in its absurdity in that it attacks the root condition that must exist in order to allow for the possibility of a Absurd at all. Therefore, if we allow that a term Absurd legitimately exists, we must finally allow that it would be that term if we decided with knowledge or without to pursue that which is impossible.
'At last I perceive that in revolutions the supreme power rests with the most abandoned.'
These images and videos are impossible to watch. They exists only in order to emphasize the solidarity each person must feel with another person who has placed something else totally outside of themselves. It is the purpose of a state to preserve itself, through ideology and finally through violence. But it is the bodies of the men and women who are beaten by those ideologies and bats that persist.
But that's a lie, too. It is too easy to abstract from this, to write about it as a singularity or an event, or maybe it is better put that it is too hard to speak about it as itself. It is the purpose of these videos that these bodies might persist. That their murderers, the worst kind of murderers, those who kill for ideologies that have become untenable and unreal, who think that by stabbing students or beating protesters they can return to the old world. They are wrong on two counts. The past can't be resurrected. Only a new tyranny can be installed, and it must have a greater capacity for violence and suppression. And these bodies can't be carted away. They existed, not just for the ten people who held a man while he died, or beat a defenseless man into the ground, but for everyone who encounters them in the future. It's what used to be meant by witness. They are more than just bodies at this point. They are also reminders that last week, the old order could stand on its own, people could be oppressed and still walk the streets oppressed, and this week, the regime must kill them to make them obey.
What solidarity means from this far away I don't know. It can have everything to do with a certain narcissism and a desire to become the revolutionary being while sitting still. But it can also be the limit of empathy and an absolute position against the hurt and crime being put to a people who persist, despite the men in the black masks.
Premise: No Paradox
The hypothesis of time travel in fiction is that to go back is to cause the future in which you, the person in question, goes back in time. One cannot go back and change things, supposedly, because then one would not exist in the proper manner or location in order to go back. This hinges on a principle of anti-paradox, yes?
Only I'm having trouble with two pieces of it. First, as we experience time linearly, it would be a totally fucked incident were we to significantly alter our exterior input experience. The fear of the anti-pardoxicals is that universal laws must necessarily exist, and violations of those laws make their fields moot, yes? Only, that's the point of doing something as fucked as time traveling in space, the new thing that we're trying for the first time. Therefore, it's probably going to cause all sorts of wicked paradoxes and other things we might not even have figured are paradoxes, but like triple level paradoxes, yeah, unrecognizably weird shit that we can't put into words. So I don't see the big reason to claim it's got to be coherent or anything.
That said, I am going to advance another of their type of theories that it isn't a paradox at all, only I'm going to expand it beyond "causing ones own oneness". Here, the problem is something like killing your mother, yes? So I go back, kill my mother, I am not born, how did I kill her. What an idiot series of events, really. What I've done, beyond wasted a time travel trip, is commit an elaborate suicide. In a normal suicide, I kill myself at one point and cease begin in point after. Here, I've killed myself, as well as all parts of myself that exist at all times. The act done, I'll die, just as in a suicide. That I'm dead doesn't mean that I can't have done the act that killed me. "The man couldn't have committed suicide, your honor, he's dead!" Let's move it slightly off suicide and matricide and toward general behavior. I commit, at timepoint B, general behavior element D. This general behavior causes me to go to timepoint A, and commit general behavior element C, yes?
First, I presume we're not significantly bound by D->C causuality, or B->A timeline, that we can imagine a universe in which the future influences the past. Second, and more interesting, is that this all presume a constantly created timeline. To elaborate. Every instant that occurs, occurs in a planned order that constitutes the existential makeup of Time, as understood here as the set of all events in a linear unchangeable order. That is to say, were an instant to be shifted or altered, it would no longer be Time, as understood here, but would instead be something else. So we need to envision this type of time, the faulty type, as being constantly produced. That this is fragile is perhaps only a point of view, it might be perfectly infinitely strong. What it lacks is its own internal logic that demands only forward-being causuality, because if I alter Time, and turn it into (time) by shifting an element, by killing my mother, by committing general behavior element c, then I've not only altered the moment and the subsequent moments, but have struck at the ontological character of Time and transformed it backwardsly.
Eric: Hello Grantwa
me: Hey.
What's up?
Eric: nuthin. I ate some food...
couldn't move houses yesterday... gotta wait till tomorrow now...
so I'm kinda just waiting for tomorrow.
me: Why the wait?
Let's say you had a giant picture, what, 10 megapixels or something. So 10 million pixels, right? Ok, so lets say you had a computer program that cropped it in every possible location and size, right? How many would that be?
That's a second question.
or THE second question.
Eric: landlady didn't move out yet...
me: Nobody's waiting for you to leave to get into your place, are they?
Or is this like dominos.
Eric: well... there not in till the 1st
so thats not a prob
but...uhhh... math?
I don't know your answeres
sounds maybe exponential in a way
me: Yes, but what way.
Didn't you kick ass in math in High School?
Or do they make you forget all that when you go to art school.
Eric: I did pretty well... I could have maybe told you six years ago
or 8
how ever long ago that was
what are you up to? Math?
Sent at 4:06 PM on Wednesday
me: No..
Sent at 4:10 PM on Wednesday
Eric: Looked up yer mobius glass - thats pretty sweet
me: I just had an idea, but I'm starting to think it'd be terrible, of a computer program that would take enormous, I mean, thousand megapixel enormous, pictures and then crop it into all its possibilities, and have some organization of humans to sift through it and relatively value each one, skimming off the best and then having them as a collection. But that's gotta be billions...or worse...trillions...
Eric: yeah.... thats a lot
me: Yeah. We need more humans.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: What the fuck?
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: You're not receptive today, are you.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: And super insistent about it.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: I mean, I get it.,
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Was it the more humans thing?
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Because that's pretty offensive.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Or is this the internet becoming a Klein bottle.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: And we're looping into unreceptivity. This might be what catatonia feels like.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Just a screaming stream of did not receives.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: I try to speak...
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Only to hear that I am not heard.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: But I am still personified.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: And am now existentially conditioned to be unheard.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Uncool.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: I try to type and am told, before I even speak now, that I will be unheard.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: It is a fight, then.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Between my brain and your brain.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Your brain wants to suppress me, turn me into a vegetable
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: And in my impotence, I might submit.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: I must submit, really, or keep talking to myself.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Silence or Trapp-ed-ness.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Is there an alternative?
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Ok, so suppose I'm mad.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: In this instance, my words cannot be heard and I am aware of it.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Or my ideas are not communicated, but that's really a semantic difference, right?
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: No, I think its that I cannot be heard.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: I am shut, into a closet.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Is there an out-of-the-closet, I begin to wonder.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Or only closet and not-being-heardness.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: I retreat into my brain.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: I cannot verify anything, beyond my own words.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Do I root it in my words? Or are we here at bottom of the linguistic turn?
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Is this the reality we're heading toward?
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: The cumulative effect of internet.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Words and words alone, but now my words.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: I am given a tool through a non-mad (or in this case, non-internet) childhood.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Then, when I am incorporated into the machinery, made defensive about leaving it, made to understand that my choices are to speak or not to speak, and that speaking is better or to be valued, or worse, the source of all value.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: Then I am placed into the mad (or in this case, internet) adulthood and my conditions are clear; I am a speaker, for whom all value is in communication, and communication is made impossible, and am given no alternatives.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: I could, conceivably, still speak to myself, but for your constant speech; for every time I speak, you speak more, but the same.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: For every time I begin, you become concrete already.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: So my reality is either one of practiced ignorance, of your speech, or practiced ignorance of my own desire to speak.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: If I not-value speech, I cannot escape the logic, intentionally implanted, no doubt, that to not speak is to succumb to meaninglessness, to fail to exist properly.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: To become a not-valuer, though I would need to formulate an alternative logic, in spite of your interruptions.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
Eric did not receive your chat.
me: My recourse now is lesser, to become just the transcriptionist of your crimes against me, to broaden the possible outlets for my closet, and hope that it is you who are insane, the manifestation of internet logics, and that you will be prosecuted for the crimes you insist on repeating to me.
Eric did not receive your chat.
You Read Our Books and Read Our Buildings and You Think We Were Too Dumb Too.
But we are still here
we invented the aliens you think we are.
We make pictures for you, with notes.
Minimen. Protominimen.
Darwinism must have been opposed strongly by the church and other soon after the publication of the theory. Nevertheless we have nowadays deep impressions without our private opinions taking the present world of thought by storm. At this time, the discovery of groups of the Nagaiwa minvertebratae of the author shows clearly Darwin's error quite completely. All vertebratae grow and metamorphosed from the special ovipara during the Cambrian and Ordovician periods into the adult body of the Silurian period and they that only growth of the body was left in the original forms, up to the present over a span of four hundred million years.
Observing this by body of mankind, which had grown the four limbs via the period of a man head with a dragon type bodies. There has grown a semispherical, spherical and long head according to the growth of the cerebral cortex and the four limbs had grown to be erect standing and able to walk on two feet. And so it was that mankind has developed to the complete Silurian adult with a civilization using the characteristic eyes and fingers. After that mankind had no further metamorphoses and only growth until the Recent mankind. The metamorphoses till the Silurian period were totally the same as that of the Recent embryo in the mother bodies for 280 days. This metamorphosis does not fit into the Darwinian theory.
The author has discovered more than 93 species of the Nagaiwa minivertebratae, all of which had the same corresponding species ion the extinct or Recent period and there were no new species, that is, there was no big evolution, nor metamorphosis over very long times in vertebratae bodies.
The Nagaiwa limestone contained Archaeocyathas, Orthoceras, Graptolites, Halysites and Favosites etc. with the minivertebratae, so that it must be confused that it was of the Cambrian to the Silurian periods. However, this is said to be of the upper Carboniferous age according to present geology, because it belongs to the upheaval of the geosyncline of the Japanese insular arc having Fusilina. That is, the nagaiwa district was one spot having lower and upper Paleozoic fossils in different existing at different times over a period of one hundred million years, and having no difference as far as the layers were concerned. Also the former had chiefly the land animals and the latter the aquatic.
Under such difficult circumstances the author has thus related the story of the Nagaiwa mountain and its connection with the Angara continent, at its eastern end to bring both forms to life.
In this way, the minivertebratae including the minimankind born in the old Nagaiwa district progressed westward, entered the continent and became distributed gradually all over the world, but leaving behind a part of them at the bottom of the sea of the Nagaiwa district, where long after them the geosyncline of the Honshu insular arc, possessing Fusulina was raised up. The sea bottom minivertebratae had fossilized and became elevated again, but mixed with Fusulina to become the Nagaiwa fossilized minivertebratae of the present time.
The Recent mankind theory states that the so-called races became such, as distinct units of life. However, all mankind belongs to only one species and these so-called racial forms have existed already in the period of miniman and protominiman. Therefore, it is not right, to take these various forms to be a change according to certain circumstances. They must be said rather to be a result of the survival of the fittest.
The intelligence of the minimen has become known that there was a limit to their intellectural and other faculties and that they had a religious sentiment, which is proven by the many idols they manufactured. Only mankind had a development of the cerebrum and the other animals did not. What is behind this phenomenon? The matter is wrapped up in mystery and after all we must affirm the existence of a god or creator. That the beginning of the history of mankind during four hundred million years can be seen in the religious products of miniman makes us feel the influence of religion more firmly than ever before.
Here the author decided to change the name of the Nagaiwa miniman and named it "Angara ancestor" for convenience of the following scientific and religious studies which are to follow.
Pickles, Olives, Penicillin
Unless in expert hands, it is unadvisable to use against a staff or a stick since disarming is often only a matter of striking at the link and jerking it hard out of the hands of the practitioner
Possession is illegal in a number of countries including Belgium, Germany, Norway, Canada[15], and Spain. In the United Kingdom it is legal to own for martial arts purposes, although public possession is not allowed unless transporting between a place of training and a private address. Legality in the United States varies at state level, e.g., personal possession is illegal in New York, Arizona, California and Massachusetts, but in other states possession has not been criminalized. Legality in Australia is also determined by individual state laws. In New South Wales, the weapon is on the restricted weapons list, and thus can only be owned with a permit. In New York, attorney Jim Maloney has brought a federal constitutional challenge to the statutes that criminalize simple in-home possession for peaceful use in martial-arts practice or legal home defense.[16] As of March 2009, the case was awaiting the filing of a petition for certiorari for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, and was the subject of several legal blogs, including the Volokh Conspiracy.[17]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)