The Mathematics of Appropriation

(where the various symbols are variously defined and not as in the usual practice of mathematics that they have the same meaning if they symbolize the same thing)

and of course we can extent that to an affine transform

and that's along the lines of harman proposing not that we are gonna be creating some ideal since we can't know that

just something different

and that falls within the sphere of human creation not 'art'

May

when the state department or the state Apartment
or the dept of Energy and simulation
downgrades greece to level 0 and assigns Pakistan as the birthplace of democracy (ancient Pakistan that is)
then you will see the greeks scattering around running for cover
and they will be mobilized to the streets of course

that's a favourite sport

especially in May

Engels

Like all philosophers who enter the practical sphere he projects what he wants
he is good in his analysis of family and all history
but when he enters the economics and all that
a lot of hodge-podge unconvincing things happen...

perhaps

many people don't realize
and we all do  (not)
that once you said universe you should stop talking
because you said everything

therefore you must say everything you have to say before the magic word

does that constitute a magic ritual?
perhaps
to those who will take it that way

does this poem have its own architecture?
yes
definitely

Dawkins hypcrite!

[i don't wanna see that name again but it keeps propping up]

when people say evolution has no place for god
that's a laughable statement because it includes its own definition

there is no absolute

and because humans can not express that they fall into paradoxes
i can only create my own little absolute and uncompromising intransigent universe for my own defenses
but that's as far as the walls of my cube and paralilepiped

does that give us an inkling?

of source some will say this is the length of the language

but the language evolved out of the brain as a meta-function whose that based on?

and the paradox goes on

i can look at myself and i can look at myself looking at myself and i can look at myself at looking at myself at looking at myself
is that gonna lead to madness?
you sure bet it is


let the fish come out of the water and the animals be and forget about the gods
and gods delusions

rusionalist

the rationalists speak rationally about the rational

the allusionists speak in allusions about what cannot be said rationally

thus the allusionists seem to talk about a superset of what the rationalists talk about
they even accept the rationalist approach (proof etc) in the part that is rationalist

then why can't the rationalists make the leap?

of course there is the issue of the ego

but the ego has already been broken  from the allusionist side

the only answer is that they do accept it but do not publicly admit it


don't we all have something  we won't admit publicly?

Like i would say that i went to the prostitutes

"i went to the prostitutes you guys!"

"man you need help"

cog

"you do an empirical study and you get an empirical result"

isn't that bizarre?

i guess that cognitive thinker won't take his pills tonight

because the experiments were done on mice and only a limited number of people

of course it could be a provocative title
it won't hook me
to see at the very last line that his opinion is exactly the opposite

those cognitive scientists have some kind of preciousness for their brain