a + b = x

- that's what the mathematicians mean when they say return to first principles
- Ah that's what they mean?!
  But what is a and what is b?
- ah that's what we have to figure out

 he stopped short 

- he stopped short of describing
- describing what?
- that's what he didn't say
- hmm it seems he described the whole thing then

painting

sometimes I'm thinking we should do away  get rid of all the labels that are one level above the ground

what is this? this is painting (poussin)

what is this? painting and sculpture (rauschenberg)

art is snicky business

painting? it's paint liquid

nobody doesn't know what liquid means

because if you are one level above the ground you still see the ground the ground is still in view
if you go more the view is lost

of course you'll say you can bend your neck and tilt and twist and turn yourself and still see the ground (from that 7th floor)

that's tricky business
that's magic tricks
you earn yourself a place in eternity
but you don't earn eternity
you are einstein who reinvents the square law

[did he tell us that the universe is governed by a third power law?
cube vs square
3 dimensional space 2 dimensional equation power-1

well he invented a lot of other things...
that's what he is known for isn't he that's what his popularity is based on
you need a con-carde a symbol
a good name-tag and a smiling personality and off you go

that's what popularity means

as for essence..we will have to rely on others]

you are riehmann who bends the space

that's why women/females (appear) to have a 2-level structure a big mama in the center and the surrounding workresses

while the ego is high flying

(that's a high flying hypothesis)

or you could see that as a center and its circle
or you would be playing with words


or may be concentric circles

isn't that the same as hierarchy levels?


there may be some experimental evidence for that somewhere

of course women are not the same as men and the functioning would be different

the extreme feminism would have it that all be equal externally
but how can it be equal externally and unequal internally that's a contradiction and absurdity

some of the extreme feminism is for laughs (I did laugh out spontaneously once on a claim by a feminist)

i have an inkling that that's what we mean by circles of influence

the queen (of England that is) does not have the same aquaintance with all and each layer of aquaintance has a different influence on her

that's not an all-women but it's what we mean here

how would the queen delegate jobs to her circles (and what jobs)

it's not a realistic case since it runs on vapour but it has a realistic simile and has a remnant of old structure
that was real at one point

some will say this runs on already male structure and thus you can't make anything out of it
accepted we can only make...inklings

for the real thing we will have to go to some matriarchal society of the past / or present

it seems to me concentric circles lie on the plane and the pyramid runs the height (it's a phalic resemblance but it's not our concern)

perhaps the different circles don't report to the immediate succeeding circle but directly to the centre or maybe they do

whether concentric circles or pyramid it's the same layered delegating of tasks (I don't think the myth that everybody is doing the same task in the circle except the queen who oversees stands the chance of reasoning

in simple societies yes
the same could be said about males all the hunters and the chief
as things became more complex so the structure of the group had to be more complex - whether in men or women

so I'm busting the myth of multilayerism as being avert to females
that's not true females can have the same layers of ordering and commandeering and delegation of power

whether it's vertical or horizontal

i'm almost sure people will come back and develop them again