Like a Gazelle

I am writing a book that is a testament to its own renunciation. In my fevered desire to withdraw our existence from the evil modes of sapient hunters, I look toward a different plane. Those legitimist concepts which haunted Gide and Faulkner, on the cusp, as I, those papal rants engendered by the irreverent tainting of Christ’s resurrection, entereth not into my journals.

I entered her. Her body rose in a psalm-like wave of tanned stomach and breast, her head digging backwards into the mattress. She was caving into me. I gave her all that she needed, and she let the black, sweet, overwhelming power-light of her existence to enter into the cleft aperture of my rod – the bitter chemo of her violent, odorous lubricants penetrated, burned, and stung the raw interior of my single, lone, seminal canal – the stunned, forest-like lanyard of my groin bemoaned and silenced; for which her knowledge of, she was like a gazelle.

Care must be taken, and ingrained. She renounced her existence for me – she littered, she rained upon my life a missive, of which the two of us, were risen to a plateau; and she ran like a gazelle there, and her breasts jarred with the spread.

Notes duplicate instructions

Arcane instructions. Duplicate instructions adjacent to this world (the truth sign is (P,Q)(TFTT), alternatively (X,Y(1011)). c, h, Planck length, atomic weight, ..., AN:NN. Notes.

Registrar

Possession is an attack concept. I don't buy it. It has been grammatically wrought in the human person as a subjunctive registrar requiring educated retrenchment. Thence, to the benign 'psychological acne' which traces-out the mneumonics of our learning curves and skill-acquisitions; a prosaic kernal seen in the 'deeper politics' of L.W.'s later 'work', required for putting out the fires of low intensity warfare waged against - the classes, in the broadest sense of the term.

reverse exclusion eq. cf cond.

(U – y = x) def.

(U – x = y) def.

:: ( (U – x = -y) ^ -(U – y = -x) ) → x <> y ↔ 1(x,y), 1(x,-y),1(-x,y), 1(-x, -y) ::

Disposition

φ. For each υ in Γ, υx and γt in Γ, if both (γ, υx) and (γ, γt) are elements of some functor Fu, then υx = γt.

f (γ, γt) ∙ (γ, υx) = φ (γ, γt) ∙ (γ, υx)

ψ. For each υ in Γ, υx and γt in Γ, if either or both (γ, υx) and (γ, γt) are not elements of some functor Fu, then υx ≠ γt.
f (γ, γt) ∙ (γ, υx) = ψ (γ, γt) ∙ (γ, υx)

3.333. ‘The reason a function cannot be its own argument is that the sign for a function is already contains the prototype of its argument, and it cannot contain itself.

‘For let us suppose that the function F(fx) could be its be its own argument: in that case there would be a function ‘F(F(f x))’, in which the outer function F and the inner function F must have different meanings, since the inner one has the form φ(f x) and the outer one has the form ψ(φ(f x)). Only the letter ‘F’ is common to the two functions, but the letter by itself signifies nothing.’

Wittgenstein is clear: 3.333. ‘This immediately becomes clear if instead of F(Fu) we write ‘(φ): F(φu) . φu = Fu’. That disposes of Russell’s paradox.’

It also disposes of the paradox of special relativity and declares that the very possibility of a situation ψ is eliminated. There is another way of writing this:

F: φ (γ, γt) ∙ (γ, υx) ↔ ((φ): F(φu) . φu = Fu)
F: ψ (γ, γt) ∙ (γ, υx) ↔ ¬ ((φ): F(φu) . φu = Fu)

And further. If i is an imaginary aggregate, or if it is merely and indicator, then:

F: φ (γ, γt) ∙ (γ, υx) ↔ ((φ): F(φu) . φu = Fu) = F (φ) ↔ i
F: ψ (γ, γt) ∙ (γ, υx) ↔ ¬ ((φ): F(φu) . φu = Fu) = F (ψ) ↔ ¬ i

This indicator has full forensic authority over the whole matter of a confused physics - both i and its negation ¬ i. The ultimate reduction.

One thing it demonstrates is the ultimate absurdity of Baez’s claim that functors should not have elements (he means, in the sense that sets do) simply because a functor is not strictly a set but enhances categories; this would be much too simplistic.

I personally tend to think that the indicator is representative and not procedural and that it represents the logical canvassing of physical reasoning – or, the logical indication of a metaphysics, although not the metaphysics itself.

I want to dispose of metaphysics actually by means of reducing physics to a logical indicator.

Wittgenstein's visceral attack

Wittgenstein’s visceral attack on the cogito was correct and called for. Removing the alibi – a criminal persona in any situation – of intellectual cover from metaphysical thinking was his merciful gift to a ruined world. He gave the gift of the Tomb and the Resurrection. An exegesis is not needed.

Mojo Pith

In a good theory of categories, the negation of a tautology would add a grammatically coherent segment to the tautology. That would would render a mojo pith to the historical failure to eliminate this aposteri and apriori shit.