children learn and understand 1 + 2 = 3 very easily, but tell them: equate i think to be a sentence of expressing being... they get lost, and i would too, given that words are like complex numbers, parts of the index of infinity, or simply imaginary numbers, like when people discourage honour and never keep a promise / never mind the meaning of a word that attracts verb vectors to act upon; simpler? 2386 + 9032 = ? that's how words are understood to a child's understanding of 1 and 2 and 3 / ?, and when phonetics develops to no theory, such mathematical complexities are forgotten and left to a few, and the chiral equivalence is far from singing the alphabet, near enough to be crossword material... but proud enough to not teach chomsky kabbalah: i mean, it's very easy to remember 1, 2, 3... odd even odd... but a, b, c... vowel, consonant, consonant... we never engaged configuring compounds (meaning) from learning the alphabet, first the vocabulary, then the alphabet... what comes after the alphabet i leave you to decide upon life's worth for rubric; mathematical concerns are better suited first from the senses orientating themselves with traffic wardens and compulsively impressive forces of sheen metal that desire respect when crossing the street unlike hindu cows.*

an early basis
for an indicator for intelligence
in children is based
upon a strange faculty of numbering:
a familiarity with mathematical symbols:
after that you get to distinguish
the nerd from the intellect
(the former constrained, the latter free)
whether there's an equal methodology
application of numerological
acquisition of sight via 1, 2, 3
into 321985...
or whether mathematics becomes
so well hidden that 321985: cbaihe
can be presumed an anagram
or simply random / error based...
basically children learn mathematical
symbols are easier to express, because
of the singularity of 1 + 1
than they do of the singularity of
words, e.g. i + think... does not necessarily
equal morality, because 1 is 1
and both i and thought have meaning,
words are not unitary in a mathematical sense...
because they are near almost invisible,
architecture is visible, the sound of making
love isn't, it's private...
which is very peculiar but not really...
mandarin mathematics is to well established
because of the key ingredient
that's complex phonetics, and because
of phonetic complex coding mathematic
symbols are in relation very primitive,
but because in the post-latin european tongue
the phonetic symbols are almost like mathematic symbols
because of the "loop holes" we encounter
the great disparity of the equilibrated very rich
and the poor... but that's not really a concern for censors...
if you can prize a cheap bottle of wine over a vintage
if all you see is a trademark of fancy new times roman
modified into advert material...
i rather drink cheap wine in a location of my choice
(like primrose hill), than drink expensive wine
in a moscow zoo of little choice left
other than to show off the bling bling cheap.