in terms of ontology: all is permitted,
given that so much is left,
dangling upon a damoclean
thread of a single
horse hair...
of the unexplored:
ontology is a waiting game,
with what, already is,
a fixation on the constraints
of: ex simiae:
hence my approximation:
**** similis...
it's still a desire to preserve
a base, an origin story transfixed by
the use of fungus...
accidently swallowed a mosquito:
suddenly grew a ******* pinocchio...
and somehow, slyly:
fixating on keep the libido
momentum...
that's crucial, that the momentum is kept...
yet i wonder...
racism:
poland vs. senegal was
the first game when the rams bothered
to clash horns...
oh i can be crytical when i see it
through a lense of: crypto-nationalism...
unlike the romance of the noble prize
being given to Milosz...
economic migration background:
i'm not allowed to romance about it...
there's no "grand" furore to mind,
no expectation,
and certainly no: bending the knee
of the hosts...
****! from calling them natives
i'm starting to think in american terms
of hosts...
given i'm an alien "body":
more or less a thought, prior;
but that was the first instance of
deviating from playing out the sport,
poland vs. senegal...
******* europe versus a people
who know of europeans...
belgians and the congo...
slim afro beauty that she was...
no wonder...
could almost say the *******
came when i felt my frontal pelvis
bones was sore after she
rammed her coccyx onto me...
but outside the realm of serving
seductive cocktails while playing
cedric 'IM' brooks'
satta masa ganna...
no, i'm just curious about
the dynamic, behind a word such as
racism...
and language in general...
who are the people who use
a first tier definition of a word?
i'm sure language is as loose as
well oiled spaghetti in imitation of
a pit of snakes...
and yes, the linguistic atomists
(akin to myself) who care to mind
diacritical exceptionalism
in uttering a micro-seance
prior to a syllable... notably via
ü (the classical umlaut)
and what could become an
applicability of orthography in english:
with, oh so many examples in need of
being addressed:
namely: from pout,
came pút,
pool
(pül),
and the disguised vowels
of english: putter versus a patter...
the subtle elongation of the A
in a: pāt on the shoulder...
i already know that my suggestion is
too impractical to be ascribed
a subsequence with a towed effect
being ascribed...
but at least there's the observation,
in the open.
with this one particular word,
what is it: from zenith to nadir,
or from a nadir to a zenith?
definition 1.
first, or definition 3. first?
vocab. inheritance tax...
or just mindless fronting concerning
the affair?
is it a priori:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent
differences among the various human
racial groups determine cultural
or individual achievement,
usually involving the idea that one's
own race is superior and has the right
to dominate others or that a particular
racial group is inferior to the others
or 3. hatred or intolerance of
another race or other races ?
seems rather contradictory that
there could be such a priori complexity
to begin with, to be inherent...
zenith / nadir
a priori / a posteriori
dictum would suggest
that: definition no. 3 is a priori...
while definition no. 1 is a posteriori...
which also allows a psychological
dimension and
the Freudian-Jung dynamism to
"explain" the proton, neutron, electron,
egg shell egg white, yoke,
sclera, iris and the pupil
dynamic invoked by the psyche-dissection
into compartment
of a consciousness,
a sub- and an unconscious...
definition no. 1 can't be a priori:
it's too worded to make sense of
what an a priori statement looks like,
i.e.: 1 + 1 = 2.
an a posteriori statement?
given that 1 + 1 = 2 is an a priori
statement?
√-1...
lo and behold!
you get a letter! as substitute to
the meddling in numbers...
and then from i, to iota,
and the concept of a pronoun
in english (gender neutral) you go...
wunderbar!
ja...
because you can begin with an:
a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i...
clearly there's a priori
favour, to subsequently allow
a loss of explanation with a 1 + 1 = 2...
inheret bother:
because when wasn't
arithmetic ever akin to spelling?
the frequency of the letter-usage
compared to numbers?
do you call the mann unable
to count or spell:
at the same time blind
and deaf, synonymous?
what definitions behind a word
do you use?
what tier of a word are you making
allowances for?
using tier no. 1?
or using tier no. 3?
how can you even allow
an "ambiguity" of secondary tiers
of red...
given there's no celtic ginger...
and shouldn't tht belong among
painters who can actually
see past the writer's daltonism,
or x-ray in teutonic schwarz und weiß...
a sch't'ern tongue:
among, platzieren ziegel von die rot
von Marienburg...
what is the dictionary "ambiguity"
of red?
one subsequent definition is:
BLAH!
so we've established word
that acribe to tickling a thesaurus
ambiguity...
but sure as **** there are some,
rigid, orthodox, words:
that can be used, un-acriptive
of a challenging authority
wishing upon it a counter-usage...
i was born a pollack,
i acquired english:
god forbid i don't die german!
hence all this crypto-nationalism
*******...
i am a crypto-nationalist,
given that a nation is a cryptic,
quasi-noun suffragette...
ich, werden sterben ˈjərmən!
point being: i'm hardly welcome...
but death is hardly
a grieving mother,
rather, a welcoming *****.
i've "said" enough,
question is...
have i drunk enough?
