it became such a mess, such a spontaneous persistence to change the subject and involve too many, that it just had to be cut up into four sections.
i
it really wasn't enough to create diacritical distinctions
for the letters of the Latin men,
Christianity had to come along too,
a mixture of what Russell described as
Platonic and Neoplatonic populism, derivatives
of Judaism and the cults of the near east,
notably Orphism - as a way to pacify i guess,
the ardent spirits into submission -
the only success story being in Scandinavia;
but it wasn't enough to introduce diacritical marks
to the Latin alphabet so that barbarians could retain
their uniqueness of tongued-stress,
so too the emergence of the linguistic topsy turvy alphabet,
like the upside down omega - a natural born congestion
of the educated class, they weren't satisfied with memorising
the alphabetical atoms as the specified sounds,
even when given revisions of c (ć), n (ń), s (ś), z (ź) -
this second revision of the alphabet like ˌɒnəˌmætəˈpiːə,
or the trans-atlantic version:
on-uh-mat-uh-***-uh, ‐mah-tuh* -
and already i can see the tetragrammaton working
intricacies in this pronunciation - italicised,
but barely pronounced, or in Essex: 'it's 'appening'.
ii
indeed the aesthetics of excess, orthographic,
the alter: in polish u and ó - same sound - knock knock,
the latter ruled as prettier in certain spellings
than the other, a bit like fashion, a blue turtle-neck
sweater with a long purple skirt - or some other
dalton misunderstanding: translated into greek it's
the same with ε (epsilon) and η (eta), depends which
looks prettier, but why are there rules concerning
what's correct? none, of course one looks aesthetically
pleasing, but why bother schooling children in
rigid aesthetics, even joke about it on news channels
when both are correct, you end up saying the intended
sound: i can accept the handwritten argument,
namely which letter best suited compounding letters
into a smooth connectivity, but in this digitalised
world, my hand writing was already based on the
principle of typing rather than handwriting, i.e.
no letter was joined up in a word, all of them looked
like this, i guess that's why 'αδης spelling wins
given that you'd connect the longer leg of η to the tail
of the ς, which is where the french ç (s) in the word
garçon comes from, the greek sigma (used only
at the end of words); never in school where we taught
french in units, these distinctions were never explained
to us, they fed us the language like turkeys, entire words,
not explaining the distinctions of units, hence my tongue
broke and never learnt anything.
iii
Hades, the sole greek god who had no temple:
as with the vastness of the universe -
that great dawn of thought in man,
and subsequent ratty scutter, hardly the admirable
sloth of a centipede, out of panic first
man's religious organisation into ranks -
out of fear - where too the barbaric bewilderment
of the talk of soul - a breath in wintry conditions
seemed less bewildering concerning proving
unseen things - or writing, hearing unsaid things.
iv
you hear this from journalism, you hear it from
historians, enough time passes, and real events
became labelled: non-existent, famous people back
then end up labelled non-existent - esp. now given
the omni-literate populace, writing something these days
isn't as significant as it was with quills and papyrus.
i don't think it's as easy to outright deny something's
existence, the modern journalistic onslaught and
relentlessness over-feeding us world events
is hardly worth a history other than in itself, a day,
the journalistic onslaught and relentlessness,
it's history on αmφeτaμiνeς - so much passes through
the mouth of time, so much is recycled, regurgitated, lost,
forgotten, it's no longer that if enough time passes,
historical events become mythological events, that's
natural, that after enough history has been recorded,
lived, remembered - the Grand Logos (abstracted god)
enters and utilises the logic of changing history into
myth... hence it's logical to have myths, since there's
an applicable logic involved, when history becomes strained
by too much time, mythology enters, after all the
contemporaries die from a specific event, people are
prone to forgetfulness, as is natural and therefore require
mythology, to retain some memory of the event
or person - mythology isn't necessarily about denying
something's existence prior, it's the blood timespan,
too much time, history becomes mythology given a certain
number of centuries necessarily having to pass,
epochs - not centuries, epochs - enter the realm of aeons
and you enter astrological domain of the zodiac 12.
