natural selection is the easy explanation -
of course the additions worth
exceptions that one blind man would
call an elephant, for each man and his
assets - or those missing -
but with natural selection the antagonist
ontology - begging the question
about what every philosopher does,
extracting from ditto (or the passing
down of units of meaning, i.e. words)
his own lessened bewilderment:
"natural" and "selection" - as in the case
of the memory recount: there's nothing to
be imagined, but upon recounted distorted,
idly surrealistic in the least -
if there is natural selection worth a house
a wife a pair of kids on the personal level
there's this unconscious rather than a natural
selection, which delves with mingling
memory with imagination - one might suggest
a polar opposite, we don't choose what we
remember, it's also automated, but more personalised
than what natural selection breeds based
on looks and aesthetics in general -
so much i wish to have remembered that wasn't
rubric based wasn't the quote
akin to that Jesus sniff about the corner brick
being rejected - religiously fundamental even
with or without scientific allegiance or sooth-said
alliance - thus still the continuum of ? -
and the sometimes secure ! extraction worthy
of a Newton - but when it comes to memory
i find no natural selection, unless like every philosopher
i like boxes and boxing things into the unanswered
categorisation of kept contentment as fuelling
contained capitalisation of the chance omitted second guess -
i can't equate myself toward a continuum of only two facts
by the Cartesian standard - one fact precipitating into
another - since from i think i spawn more than just
the fact precipitated into i am - of course i am on
the table of autopsy is disseminated toward the historian
and elsewhere - but before i think can precipitate
via therefore into concrete it has to identify the other
mental faculties, two major: i imagine (Disney)
and i remember - that variant of imagination wholly personal -
for memory is imagination wholly engrossed with
a nullified projection of originality - alt. aimed at
the architecture of self-worth. this is my bewilderment -
given natural selection understood quiet well
with so many rejections - why is memory not deemed
naturally selective? but rather unnaturally selective?
i guess the ~arithmetic of ontology per se can give us
clues why one is natural, and the other unnatural,
one one leaves us with a perfectly functioning example
of continuance and a loss of self-preservation,
while the other, due to its purpose of contentment with
as many questions as there are cares for packaging -
leaves us with the pinnacle solipsistic;
hence with natural selection due to aesthetics -
hence with "unnatural" selection due to psychology -
never was the inverse-anatomic putting-together
of man as necessary as these days -
hence unravelling the ditto, also ambiguity, also
instigator to mime / copy, also to originate from,
also a raw slab of marble to perfect into statue,
also a passed on no longer passable entourage of
citation, also a cut-off point needing revision -
and after all we were taught with Pythagoras in tow -
it seems a natural way to memorise life away
from the schooling - as naturally dis-inhibited
we became "naturally" inhibited in what life
constituted when memorised - for the lack of imaginative
escapes - the dark tunnel and the light at the end -
the Molotov horror with near-death experiences.