i like the thought of the dynamic between words such
as presupposition supposition and proposition -
i'm holding a book of philosophy is one hand
and a newspaper in the other: one certainly feels heavier -
so many lives are documented
daily, without a fail, and it's sad to say: they don't
matter... but that's what it feels like
holding a book of philosophy and a newspaper:
people get degraded into
things:
res absquecogito (a thing
without a thought - actually
a thing without the verb of thought,
what with thought being the crowned
prince of nouns): some do say that
thinking if the doing part or not doing
anything...
sometimes i write and think i do not exist,
such is the overpowering stance of the people...
but you're still left with newspaper in
one hand, and a book on philosophy in the other...
the reason that philosophy doesn't solve anything
is because philosophy is a word of practiced
misanthropy - it just says:
i'm here, my thinking is hardly utopia:
but i don't want you to experience my problems
and make them real or phantasmagorical
as the sold solution: you avoid me,
i avoid you: we'll be fine.
hence the juggling of of presuppositions,
suppositions, propositions and
trying to keep your mouth shut
with enough pronoun surgery to an out-dated
Michael Jackson face and enough prepositional
leeway to protest for an amendment
to protect and: altogether losing that freedom,
readied for shouting as is the case.
what a difference though...
a literary medium "siding" with the people,
and a literary medium "siding" with itself...
what a disparity between the two...
such is the shitstorm:
presupposition(s), suppositions,
preposition(s) and propositions -
the a before a god,
suppose there is a god,
then let us presuppose that suppose / supposedly
so? proposing something also works
with the same dynamic, a proposition has
to be grounded in a preposition -
presupposition dynamics are fun though,
you have no propositions for them,
all you have are prepositional shrapnel itemisation
a- (without, by way of indirect)
and -the (bad mannered pointing at it, or by
way of direct) articulation: summed with an -ism.
prepositional dynamism has nothing suppositional
concerning god, hence it has no propositional
about the most economically franchised / effective
variation of philosophical expression: lost the narrative,
ergo we encourage aphorisms and maxims.
language needs systematisation to reveal to us
individually what words we'll be juggling systematically,
perhaps it's the re- and re- and and re- res
reflective reflexive repetition thing...
or it might be throwing a guarding prefix
into the argument: akin to the already stated
within a framework of the pre- vs. pro- attaché
that comes prior to the suggestion...
supposing there is a god vs. presupposing
the supposition that there is a god... zenith: what's god?
nadir: propositioning that there is a god vs.
prepositioning that there is a supposition of
god...
equilibrium? propositioning a presupposition
vs. the supposition of a prepositioning:
the arguments will never end, it's just a question
how you make peace with the shared experience of
internalising sounds and encoding them in 26 characters
that are, to be frank, underdressed in terms of formalising
a standardised accented basin...
at its height language can become akin to
arithmetic, philosophers are, actually, brilliant arithmetic
artists, they can't write you a Tolstoy,
or a Camus... but they can write you a great 1 + 1 = 2...
it's not even being economic wird words,
it's more like Robinson Crusoe was stranded on
a beach, his tools included a coconut and a matchstick:
build me Philadelphia! obviously it didn't happen
overnight... but it somehow happened.
that's why mathematical orthodoxy has
nothing to do with mental or signatured arithmetic,
philosophy meets that disparity too,
obviously this stance isn't a Lady Gaga moment of
cool populism: it's shadowy and obscure,
because why would it not be so?
philosophers are the great arithmetic
conglomerate of spell-checks...
hence no Napoleon invading Russia
and courtesy talk of privilege over a samovar session
and more of the odious rubric:
and nul scores for coherency and
creating an imaginative rekindling from a mistake made...
nul scores!
mathematicians are bad at numerical arithmetic,
philosophers are only good at alphabetical arithmetic
(and yes, it's a kind of arithmetic:
made really difficult by babel-compounding
of non-distinct units due to the missing diacritical
marks): and in the Crimean chimera sense?
mathematicians are good at abstracting arithmetic
in their stance on isolating symbols,
whereby π is designated the 3.14 bubble...
and pretty much all of the Greek is scientifically
prone to encourage a stabilisation...
people like us, working from such heights into
wording everything in an alchemical format of
lodging and connecting things together have to necessarily
spot obstacles... i know that i stress the Edenic
circumstance of the English language without
diacritical marks, but are serious journalistic outlets
suggest: about 14% of English girls are vaguely literate.
the existence of the "other" arithmetic is
quiet poignant although remotely acknowledged...
it appears rightly asserted when someone actually has
a competence with a language (encoding an obscure number
of variations of sprechen): but still faulter / flawters /
ah! falters on what's otherwise, clearly
a very easy arithmetic puzzle: 0 1 2 3 4
a b c d e
calculator hence put b d e
together into a coherency passed down to others...
cul de sac, i.e. bed.
a bit like the alphabet cut into three:
0 (a) z (26):
it emerged from the lost clarity of English ponce:
or keeping onto power, spellcheck had to be invented,
along with algorithm search engines to correct
what would otherwise be non-distinct correlatives:
had they been properly attired with distinct barriers -
could have been worse,
we could have had Arabic as the tongue of globalisation,
but then again, as the myth goes (according to
cradle of filth within her ghost in the fog):
an arabian nightmare probably
doesn't envision an alien invasion.
