surely thought is as much an obstruction
(a sūdokú, a chess-board equivalent)
as it is a narrative,
   as it might be a liberating "force" -
    however you might "think" about
it (thinking) -
                        you can't but comply to
thought as this tier-schematic -
    one way or the other...
                     thinking is a problem,
either a solution,
      or some sort of transient entity -
obviously thought does not ally itself
with a godly status -
    as man is mortal, so too is his thinking -
one man cannot hold sway of
an immortal thought...
                well... that's hardly true:
the tier of thinking where thought is
gratified the status of a problem:
     can reveal partial precipition into
an immortal status... some would cite
zeno's paradoxes... others grasp geometry
and the "alphabet" of pythagoras...
                   but no man deems himself
"athletic" enough to perpetuate thinking -
whether in problem, solution or narrative
form...
    we all know the guise of being
transient cognition - we already don it
in our crippled tomb of the mortal frame...
i always found that man is more afraid
of being mortal, than of death itself...
don't ask me how i made that conclusion:
and that fear is all apparent when it
comes to rebelling against the socio-political
plataeu of grey...
          man becomes so afraid of
mortality that he succumbs to the motto:
             yet another, brick in the wall...
oh death is very democratic,
   it's probably the only democracy in existence:
after all... everyone has to "vote",
or rather: veto his life... **** me, that's hilarious!
death the sole "democratic" vote:
  that ends up being a veto on life,
    that's also a doubled-up veto:
      insinuated by the **** of mortality by
                              madame fin.
talk geometry or implosive geometry of
the ten square riddle that's a sūdokú
and my thinking turns into custard,
or a brick-wall...
       i become so pensive so concentrated in
not thinking, that i'm still finding myself
"thinking"...
     well... custard means i'm lost in demanding
narration,
    for every alphabetical "arithmetic"
   to some stupid compliance for a "chronology"
i.e. a, b, c, d, e, f... g...
                i don't actual care for the alphabetical
"chronology", i prefer the "alphabet"
           of spelling, individual words...
  anyway...
         with numbers?
     not so easy... it doesn't arrise from
the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, (0) -
        it's usually 1 + 1 = 2, 1 x 5 = 5,
                                             9 ÷ 3 = 3...
amazing how you can explain quantum mechanics
with numbers on this, of all basic of levels...
a 9... "behaves" like a 3,
   given the observed-non-"observasble"
morphing via the medium of obelus (÷) -
and the tract of chi in reverse:
   so how do you know the electron is both
a particle, and a wave? hence the non-"observable"
demand being asked;
university mathematics?
   it was never about arithmetics...
   it was always going to be about punctuation...
and let me tell you,
when the humanities envision punctuation
mathematicians treat it as subtle form of
arithmetic...
  but when humanities come across
mathematical punctuation?
                  of those who digest albert camus:
glum looks, and french braids as
a hairstyle... and twiddling thumbs...
    after all... √ is a mathematical "punctuation"
mark.