Coincidental Evidence for Manufacturing Contradiction
"Traveling text on the wing of time, synchronisity call coincidence divine." (uw3.d)
Mathematical systems are considered the least abstract of our representations of truth. Yet even in math, our most precise arrangement of symbols, lurks the likelihood of distortion.
Letters are variable, numbers are constant. Yet a digital semantic exists. English homonyms and a floating context gives rise to ambiguity in discourse. The variability of text leaves verbal slack that can only be picked up by (subjective) interpretation. Likewise, math is subject to measures of estimation, which will never be absolute. This incommensurablity is expressed in one case as "the monster in the middle of the unit square".
A square with a side of one length unit, has an area of one squared.
A line bisecting this square from A to C forms a diagonal with length root
two. The square root of two (and of any prime number) is classified as
irrational. It is the existence of irrationality in discourse that provides the
basis for contradiction. Indeed mathematicians have "eaten on the insane
root 
which takes the reason prisoner." (Macbeth).
One primary topic upon which thinkers continue to stack contradiction is that of reality. If it could be proven we and our perceptions are the almost corporeal spew of intangibility, an ageless debate would come to an end. Fortunately for the extant doxographers the potential for future contradiction still exists. It is nearly impossible to absolutely prove anything except the continued appearance of exceptions to our rules.
To facilitate a polymorphic application of symbols, (particularly letters
and numbers) certain objects and processes will hereafter be represented in
abbreviated form. The concept of flexible meaning is here stressed. The author
urges you to consider all possible paths to which a sign points (include all
possible meanings in your interpretation of text). In addition abbreviation and
use of links, combined with parenthetical detail (ie. ({[!]})) are meant to
foster an association between the life of a discourse and the Computer
programming languages. 
Through our physical link with @, humans have an architectural capacity. This is the ability to design, or to construct. In irrelevant circumstance it becomes merely the tendency to project. Thus reality is subjective. Accepting this, perceptions (signs, image, language, and metaphor) may be used as tools for sculpting the present.
@ encapsulates all things. It is accessible to each of us and we each have a significant effect upon it. Our brains provide our links with @, which we all share. With justifiable associations @, and its' SR are malleable.
SR is the private world each of us occupies. These worlds overlap with the frequency of shared experience. A thought inside an individuals head has the least impact upon reality. A recorded, or spoken thought has more effect on reality. An action has the most significant results in reality.
No two individuals experience the same reality. This is due to the categorizing quality of @, which seeks subjects. Presented with a fresh stimulus @ will most often associate with the most similar and most common stored stimulus.
Stimulus that manifest on the surface of @ send echoes into its' depths. These echoes descend until they are dissipated or stagnate. A dissipated stimulus strengthens associations along certain paths. A stagnant stimulus locks in a context in which thought or action may take place. Most of the stimuli @ encounters is, while stagnant- dissipating.
Our individual brains receive pointers to stimuli through our senses. Reaction is a physical response, orchestrated by the brain, towards the perceived action of non-self (stimuli).
Our brains form the visible nodes of the @. At each of these nodes is a corporeal extension of @ into clear, these are our bodies and our subjective realities. The clear is the calm surface of the @, undisturbed by the ripples in SR. Everything occupies the @, Still the @ contains things beyond everything, this is "clear" and includes nothing.
Writing, according to Foucault, is "arranged according to the nature of the signifier". (Within each of our skull encapsulated, organic circut boards occurs an isolated web of relationships.) The personal significance of text is determined by the strength of association between the presented signs (writing) and the individual's unique pattern of experience (nature) within the culture (language). Foucault has provided a competent description of the `author function'. He also, however rhetorically, pleas for discourse to abandon this function and exist solely of it's own merit. Towards this goal (that of work functioning independent of specified individuals, which developments in digital media will encourage) subsequent quotes are cited and linked where possible, but there is no bibliography.
It is necessary that segments of the following be unclear. The truth
towards which we strive is impure within the context of language. Thus links
will be made that may seem unnatural, more like leaps. However, it is never impossible
to connect sets of data with one another, regardless of their
disparity. Anything which can be understood as discourse can be saved as a
string in a computer program. Likewise, regardless of their content, the new
strings can be incorporated into the pre-existing system of logic threads and
strings.
"Are you so foolish to believe we will openly teach you the greatest and most important of secrets? I assure you that anyone who attempts to study, according to the ordinary and literal sense of their words, what the Hermetic philosophers write, will soon find himself in the twists of a labyrinth from which he will be unable to escape, having no Ariadne's thread to lead him out."
-Artephius
Images form links to one another according to their similarity. The web of association our brains weave from experience provides a surface upon which reality unfolds. The foreign experience is one without close parallels in an individual's personal history. A native experience is such because of its rapid association with a similar past event. Our personalities are the strengths and weaknesses of our associations. Rather, our personal responses to events are caused by recalled outcomes of previous similar and thus linked events. Despite cross cultural similarity caused by common experience, we all have individual perspectives on past events- thus individuality.
Infant's brains have similar structures over the entire surface of the globe. It is this likeness in composition and function that provides a tangible, physical link between all the brains presently evolved. The similarity of brain hard wiring provides the biological basis for a shared @.
A common @ from which we all extend is similar in structure to the Logos. This smoky data bank for humankind was first referred to by an Ephesian named Heraclitus. He, like most of the pre-Socratic thinkers has passed his wisdom unto the present through the Doxographic Tradition.
Here then is a link between contemporary memory structure and the evolution of global consciousness. The Doxographers, as exemplified by Theophrastus, recorded opinions. A subject of considerable controversy has been created by the doxographers, the Authenticity Frague. The debate centers on whether or not these historical philosophers were recording actual history, or inventing it.
There is a powerful motive for the false attribution of text. Consider the commentator Simplicius, writing in the sixth century A.D. Certainly he has an opinion of his own, along with countless others, contemporary at that time. Simplicius however, does better than regular authorship. He records his opinions and to give them immediate clout he attributes them to an earlier thinker with more renown than he. What author wouldn't sacrifice the credit of authorship, in exchange for immediate acceptance of his or her ideas? As Simplicius commented on the Physics of Aristotle he "made long quotations from Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras... for the sake of literary embellishment" (KR&S 1). This scenario is not necessarily the case, however even when the doxographers were quoting, (not fictionalizing) they were very likely to have quoted out of context, entrenching their own system of belief.
The link between the evolution of a our SRs and that of current events (whose evolution is history) is significant. Just as there are advantages to recreating the past, there is a similar motive to fabricate memories. the Jungian psychologist Wundt writes, "Memories are created moment to moment based on ques provided by the present context. Memory as an information retrieval system does not exist, rather the mind exists solely in an interpretive and creative capacity." This is a pointedly severe plea for existence in the present. Acknowledging the primacy of the immediate situation is the most we can do to improve our condition. This entire paragraph however, is an invalidated digression, a literal outcropping from the main course of the text. Justified as a scaffolding is necessary for any serious construction to take place.
The construction of links is beyond reproach as the ideal way to clear
rocks from the stream of discourse, that there may be a smooth flow along the data
banks of deNile (idea). When approaching the delta (any image) the best we can do is link it with
another image. So it is with children learning words. Words are composed of
letters, an arrangement of symbols given meaning by their patterns of
reoccurrence. As such we are introduced to the alphabet and numbers. 
Again, doxographers are the verbal ninjas, slipping unseen their own opinion into history, assassinating actuality by inserting slices of seamless fiction into the ever-changing quilt of the past. All this through tedious manipulation and arrangement of symbols.
Symbols it seems are the basis of simile. The association and manipulation of images is often in the arena of text. There is however, a more abstract application for aphorism than verse. The graphic aphorism, as exemplified by the pythagorean's representation of triangles, is another viable avenue for the expression of interactive process.
Foucault claims that man's work is criticism. This can be expressed with
much more implied complexity as a graphic aphorism. 
Of course, Foucault's
opinion is the result of his evaluation and criticism of self. He urges us to
find fault. He wants us to disregard the "oh you see" method of assumption and
find the "F---ault" in his work. It is by criticism and deconstruction, that a
work develops beyond it's author, thus extending it's influence. Consider that
this segment is disjointed and in many ways inappropriate to a serious
discussion. Recall then the necessity of texture and contrast for feeling and
perception.
"An unapparent connexion is stronger than an apparent one." So Heraclitus bids us to seek the hidden explanation. What is obvious is not the case claims the Ephesian (482 B.C.). And whom are we to believe? This hermit from the hills of Ephesus who one day arrived in the city square and after making false claims that he could end the drought buried himself in a manure pile where he died at 60. Or the texture of reality, estimated by the senses? Merely because our awareness is an estimation, we should not deny the importance of our perceptions for interpreting events. Heraclitus is correct, we must continue to search the underbelly of circumstance, only by ceaseless examination and experimentation will we keep pace with the true meaning.
It is tempting here to dig into the nature of the claim that history was invented, that the events of the past dating back to myth did not transpire as recorded. Using for example a black box logic that invents the world rather than explaining it. This is beneficial for artificial intelligence, a brain operating on a manufactured syntax of programmed and translated commands. Our intelligence is virtual, dependant upon simile; reality is resolute, our perception of it is of a lower resolution. Just as an old TV transmitted a grainier image than the one from the studio floor. So does the shadow on the wall of Plato's cave lack the dimensions of the actual objects beheld in light. Yet despite histories flexibility, it does exist as a significant force upon the associations of the present. Beneath the shadows there are paintings on the walls of the cave.
And so we explore disassociation. By dissecting the subject we break it into it's component parts. Individually we explore their functions as regards the whole. This reductionist approach unfortunately leaves fragments which will not continue to function as they did before the schism.
In order to explore a subject without affecting its meaning we must not
interfere with it. It is difficult to examine the working of the @, we must
reflect it upon itself. This has a similar effect to looking at yourself in the
bathroom mirror. Imagine a medicine cabinet on the wall perpendicular to the
mirror. There is another mirror on the door of the cabinet. If you open the
cabinet you will see the reflection of the medicine cabinet mirror in the large
mirror as reflected in the cabinet mirror upon the larger mirror. 
You will
see the reflection of a reflection ad infinitum. This is the nature of
examination, the discovery of an encapsulated infinity within limits of a
higher dimension.
Limited infinity is a paradox. There is a burgeoning scientific discipline that attempts to use mathematical expressions to describe the most unpredictable paradox, nature. Chaos theory prescribes an inherent order to even the most non-sequitur events. Order within chaos, another paradox. Consider, for example, the length of a coastline. Measured in miles it's length will be an approximation that falls far short of the length you would find if you tediously measured it with a yardstick. Furthermore if each rock was measured centimeter by centimeter, the length of the coast would increase exponentially. As the units with which you measure decrease, detail increases, eventually the coast will be of infinite length.
Chaoticians have developed the term fractal, to describe the fractions between dimensions. A sponge for instance has volume. However, it is not entirely three dimensional. The surface of the sponge is covered with pores. In turn each of these pores consists of more smaller pores, and so on. Thus a mathematical representation of a sponge is a model that takes up space, and has no volume. It is of a dimension between two and three.
The resolution of paradox has long been a topic of interests to theorists of all kinds. When Pandecli gave the order for his mercenary troops to attack the royal house of Elea in 470 B.C., Zeno was captured. Pandecli had been dominating forums for several months and Zeno along with others were plotting to bar him from public debate. Even under the duress of torture Zeno refused to give any details regarding coup to overthrow the newly established Tyrant. The coup was a success and after several months in prison Zeno was released. It has been dubiously claimed that to pass time in the dungeons of Elea, Zeno occupied his mind with puzzles, and developed some of his own. Zeno presents us with the runners paradox.
A runner approaching a goal must continuously decrease his distance by one
half. If this is the case, he will never be able to reach his goal because any
distance, no matter how short is divisible. The argument is that it is
impossible to reach an infinite amount of points in a finite amount of time,
thus the runner never reaches the other side of the stadium. 
Clearly, the runner does reach the finish line. This is because the rate at which he runs is equal to a specific distance over a specific time. This is speed, and is witnessed with our senses. Our senses perceive SR like a movie, quite literally, moment by moment they come so fast we seldom notice that they are actually a series of individual perceptions.
It is quite easy to create a paradox, given the impracticality of
expressing the unlimited logos within the confines of language. We are forced
to consider frames of reference, and the point of view of the Other. Failure to
do so results in a contradiction like the moving rows. 
When rate is
considered as a function dependent upon distance over time, this illustration
is not a paradox.
Why ABC? because...(argumentation), so also XYZ. This is the structure of hermetic science used to defend and entrench the ideas with which you begin. Familiarity with the terms of a discipline facilitate a grasp of it's jargon. Confidently speaking the jargon of a specialized field is the primary requirement for expertise. In fact biologists and lockpickers believe they have insight because of the confidence they have in material (material gradually fabricated throughout the evolution of the field) studied and rehearsed, however contrived. Once when describing the mechanism of a latch to a layman, the lockpicker forgot which words applied to which specific parts of the lock. This ignorance on the part of the expert did not manifest in the SR of the layman because the lockpicker knew the other had no familiarity with the locks details, thus he was able to use incorrect, while technical sounding terms to explain his "science".
Fiction, philosophy, science, history, etc. all began together. First there was a word, the second word served as an addendum to the first, it was almost criticism. As the language evolved so did the culture. It seems plain that the first criticism of philosophy went thus "You are stating the obvious". The first speaker created the first word to refer to something outside of the self (not me, yoU). Perhaps this initial speaking took place in the ancient city of Ur. Consider U-R, the first letter is first-
1. U
(perhaps -you, the first word)
2. R
(are, )
And Ur was a state,
3. State
(stating the obvious.)
So it is with jargon and even the most complex technicality, contrived methods of expressing what is by nature apparent. We must not be distracted by unfamiliar terms, meaning is. It is that simple.
Yet the obvious is not entirely clear. For this reason all philosophy is inherently futile, because what is absolutely obvious is not expressible in the confines of language, it is the living sensation, the truth of understanding, that of creating, or to develop further, of creating an association. We are the categorizers. "Whatever the man called every living creature, that was its' name." (Genesis 2:19).
Why did we invent science? To define the parameters of self. Any personal statement is self-justification. We are quite concerned with defining ourselves because we are in constant contact with what we interpret as non-self, or Other.
At times the other overwhelms us. This, contrary to popular belief is our natural state. As Anaxagoras claims, a long time ago @ began to disassociate. This separating off is a contrivance. We are in fact an indistinguishable part of the other which we persistently try to cleave from the self.
The most common method of pushing the other away is projection. Psychologists argue that projection is the source of SR: that all our perceptions are subject to our expectations. Often we experience the emotions of another as the subverted emotions of ourselves, this is a fundamental principle of psychoanalysis.
Psychology, as other scientific disciplines (especially astronomy) are constructed. They are built on the abstract symbols of our discourse. Letters have been identified as variables, upon closer examination numbers are far more abstract. A letter within a mathematical expression represents an unknown number. What do the numbers represent?
Philolus says "number is of two kinds, even and odd, with a third, even and odd, arising from a mixture of the two." Consider `third, even and odd' as `three = two and one'. Nichomachus defines numbers with two (the dyad) serving as, not a number, but the beginning of number. One is simplest summary of (odd) existence. Two develops one into a potential ray that follows with the prime conclusion of one and two, three. What follows is composite in structure, beginning with four. "Whoever reflects on four things, it were better he had never been born." (Talmud)
Again, all is one, one is self. Other is not self, another. Here then are
two. And thus we count, add, subtract, and contrive. One is a single unit. A
unit can be any number making up a set. Two creates the Dyad. The dyad is two
units, it is possible for one, or both of the units within the dyad to be
either singular units or dyads. A dyad of a unit (unit) and a unit (dyad) is
composed of three elements, or sets. Three is the Prime and consists of three
units. Finally four is a Composite, made up of four units. A composite of unit
(unit), unit (dyad), unit (prime), and unit (composite) contains ten elements.
It also creates an equilateral triangle. 
The numbers four and ten were of bone-crushing significance to the Pythagoreans. They're contributions to the pseudo-science of numerology have been vast. Coincidentally, there are so many dates, times, lengths, ages, etc, which may be referred to by number that a competent numerologist can create superficial links between any objects or events. For example, my height at last measurement was six feet two inches (6.2). Six is arguably the number of the devil for `numerous' reasons. The point is a dot, denoting foot from inch. Finally two is a dyad. Devil dot dyad, an alliteration if nothing else. Still three Ds, and this is how we perceive reality in 3-D. Thus I assert self, and anything else regardless of relevance.
Hermetics is numerology with letters.
Pythagoras and the process by which dialogue and discovery has been attributed to him reflects a certain placebo logic. The awareness of fabrication's effect on actuality are expressed in several contemporary song lyrics; Oz never gave anything to the tin man which he didn't already have. If you believe they put a man on the moon nothing is real, nothing is true(REM). The pills that mother gives you don't do anything at all (Jefferson Airplane).
Now to return to the point of the discourse, the elusive subject. "Writing is a question of creating a space into which the writing subject constantly disappears" (Foucault). The most important word there is `creating'. We are creating reality.
Reality is created by understanding the formation of judgements based on sensory estimations. That evidence which holds the higher percentage of confident belief at a specific time, indicates the acting truth. These transient truths would be valueless without their contradictions. Health and sickness were invented by the first healer. Without sickness, health would lose it's value and cease to indicate a possible condition. If night never fell, there would be nothing to define the day. Contradictions define the human condition.
All of the evidence presented thus far has been coincidental as far as it supports the manufacturing of contradiction. This is essential because no other type of evidence is available, in any case. In many instances the evidence was personally manufactured, the remainder were no less constructed, merely at an earlier date by a more renowned extension of the @. None the less, the evidence is verifiable, and to that extent true and real.
How now (brown cow) can we define reality? In doing so we must accept responsibility for crafting it. We are sculpting reality from the distortions in what is clear.
Thus far that most characteristic aspect of reality is that of contradiction. For this reason the deconstruction of a work serves to reinforce it's significance. The most obvious example available for the necessity of contradiction to perceive the SR is that of feeling. If we want to touch an object, we must apply pressure with our point (finger). If the object does not exert a contradictory force, our point will pass through and we experience nothing. The ground pushes against our souls, thus we remain on the surface.
Vision also requires opposing forces to operate. The retina of the eye initiates electrochemical transmission down our optic nerve primarily in the absence of stimulus. When light rays hit an area of the retina the corresponding nerves cease firing action potentials to the brain. Thus, when we see it is because of the specific information our eyes have stopped sending to the visual cortex! This is a contradiction. Still we continue to attempt reconciliation between an impossible existence without conceivable origin, and a moment by moment life within a fictional reality.
How then are we to act, given our ambiguous origin and mysterious conclusion. Keeping in mind that the seed of our existence is indefinite, we must acknowledge the significance of random events. Recalling also that we are the cause of all our perceptions, perhaps the best solutions are those we make the least (while also the most, given their required interpretation) investment in seeking. Allowing ourselves to flow with the metaphysical instincts of the SR we may discover a constant truth.
The desert contains many ants (living in their hills where the Aardvark hunts them with his tongue).
The random solution is usually the most linguistically colorful. The story above serves as a cosmogony. It takes its origin in the beginning of language, quite literally. The first entries in the Merriam Webster Dictionary are;
1. A,
2. aardvark,
3. aback,
4. abacus,
5. abalone, and
6. abandon.
This order will be referred to as direct, the story will be called abstract. Elements of direct will be referred to by number, ie. 4 = abacus.
The first line of the abstract is derived from direct's sequence with a few modifications and the addition of CFs. The sharpest discrepancy between the abstract order and the initial one is the placement of 6 before 5. This contradiction does not, however, deny an etymological survey of the first four elements.
A is the first, and until the intersection with a second, A is the entire
system. A is modified with N as An, this allows another alliteration, as well
as a second word also beginning with A. It should be noted here that in
construction N forms the border between the first and second group of
abstractions . Also N separates A from aardvark. Thus N asserts itself as a
divider between first and second abstractions in constructed and random
solutions.
In the direct, the first instance of a second letter being anything other then A comes in 3. In 1 only the first letter is considered. In 2 the first two letters are the same. In 3, aback, we consider the first three letters and here appears something other than A, a B. Also the meaning of the third calls for us to have arrived at some point (different from the initial point) and to be returning to an earlier point as a result. This is reflected in the first three letters. After 3 develops B as a second element in the sequence it takes itself back to the first element A (repeated as the third letter)
At 4 we include the fourth letter in our analysis, a C. It seems what was once nothing but A became impure in 2, yet even in 2 the first two are A. In 3 the second is a B, and as is reflected by 3's meaning the third in 3 is again A. 4 introduces yet another new element C, in the fourth position. The meaning of 4 is a tool used for counting.
It has been said "that which can be counted we perceive." That which can not be counted exists imperceptibly. It is as if once the aardvark discovered the capacity of reason, he estranged himself from nature of his origins. This presents an appropriate allegory to the human condition.
The act of 6 isolates 5. The past is left behind and the name of the mollusk is a-(and)-b-alone. The exploration initiated by a second (the result of the first division) goes so far that we are lost. The bipeds have forgotten what is most important, that a-(and)-b-(are)-al(l)-one.
1. Chief
2. Sun
2.9 of
3. Shrine
4. Moon
5. Go
6. Visit
They were reordered as, sun chief go visit shrine of moon. 
This of
course requires hirigana (CFs) to be proper Japanese. Yet the hieroglyphics for
these words serves as an interesting cosmogony.
It begins of course with what from a distance appears as a point. The point is in fact hollow and forms a spherical loop. In cross section (examination) it is a circle, "the egg a symbol of life" (Beastie Boys). The loop evolves into a triangle. It could be a pyramid, the final resting place of the great chiefs. It is well known that the lower levels of a pyramid contain the most secret passages, while the upper contain the most technology. Likewise, the Herodianic Greek counting system uses a capital delta (triangle) to signify ten. Thus we must consider the second symbol as indicated an exponential evolution. The first clearly has a value of one (though it looks like a zero), the second is not two, but ten.
The third is `go', an arrow indicating the direction of progress. The
fourth and center symbol is `visit'. Visit also means river in certain
hieroglyphics (dependent on context). In both cases there is constant change,
this then is the equaling principle. The shrine symbol is fifth and looks
exactly like the first letter (pi) of the greek word pente (five). This is a
building which is the symbol of man.
The initialization (sunlight necessary for perception) sends forth its chief purpose- to go towards the center, passing through (flowing through, or visiting) the balanced fourth, it enshrines purpose (as men cling to the past) and continues to conclusion. The end is the reflection of the beginning, with part blotted out by progress.
The sixth symbol is a CF. Likewise it indicates a potential infinity
before the end is reached. The sixth symbol is this wedge of ambiguity
between a devoted (encapsulated [enshrined]) flow from center towards
conclusion, this is another example of the curse (hex) of reason.
The evolution of the first symbol is expounded with in the "1.{". It displays progressing zoom. 3/3 When viewed from a distance appears smaller and blurs into what looks like l. Just as the point preceding l is the sun hieroglyph viewed from a distance. Unfortunately the point does not enlarge at the same rate as the fraction, this explains the disparity of perspective between the image and the description.
The most significant aspect of this description then, is the point. The point enlarges and travels (as physicists and the river tell us, in waves). Then after entrenchment and encapsulation, becomes (through the process of potentially infinite detail [the number six is a spiral similar to the Japanese word]) the capacity to acknowledge another point (so the light from the sun lets us perceive the moon).
The dinosaurs evolved into the Martians living in Antarctica. They were the result of continued reptile evolution during the ice age. As the world warmed, they found they could only tolerate the sub-zero climate of the retreating ice caps. Today all that remain live in Antarctica. They have brainwashed the result of mammalian evolution into believing the north pole is the top of the world. This was done to ensure that Humans would disregard the bottom. [Timeline/Story]
Religious people call @ god. Call it @, and we are the creators of our destiny (Andignostic). Call it god and you believe in fate, predetermination, and acquiescent behavior (Andignastic).
A trend of potentially infinite tangents does not eliminate the likelyhood of a loop. 
The
necessity of random solution, it is the only kind possible. Decreasing time
wasted increases synchronization with coincidence.
"What is the difficulty of the human condition?" If we are capable of asserting an effective force upon our destiny, why isn't Earth an enlightened utopia yet? To address this penultimate question is the concluding Platonian Justiposition, based primarily upon Timaeus (37c-39e).
"Human Suffering is caused by false assumptions based on random events." (uw3.c)
Perceiving time is the era of assumption.
The following demarcated statement is false;
*I say Plato imagined himself conversing with a human representative of
Time.*
However, excepting it as a premise allows us to draw the following
conclusions:
What is true, Plato through Timaeus says, is that discussion is imprecise. The discussion regards a pattern which by nature includes Time.
Detail and generality provide two avenues for infinite discussion. Time's relation to the pattern is confined within a loop. The parameters of this confinement are flexible according to the subject.
Taking for a subject the sun, as a man born of Earth shines light in which we perceive. We see ourselves "through the mirror of my mind" (the Supremes). Upon examination of the bodies reflection we find it to be as the vessel of self.
Skeptically do we enshrine the subject of self in this 'self image'. Freudian analysis of dreams leads us to indicate images of a house (or construction) as representing said body. In religious observation this structure is sacred. "Man is five (the devil is six and god is seven)" (The Pixies), as "alive, a shrine brought into being for the everlasting gods" (Tim. 37d), and "Number five is alive!" (Short Circut).
"Five Alive" (citrus beverage) demonstrates as we construct our argument regarding subject we support, with clips from the pattern of global discourse. We build these shrines for what purpose? To elevate self, or grow (evolve) through incorporation into self of other subjects. Indeed to incorporate the heavens in ones subject matter (as is traditional among planetarians). Discussion of heaven is often tinted (tainted) with religious observance.
Scientific observance is theoretically withdrawn. It advocates careful experimental observation and construction. Religious observance is potentially involving. It sings for adherents and links self with heaven in unlikely constructs. Of special importance to religious observers is tradition and its entrenchment. Observance in either case involves fabrication.
// Notion of numbers inc. +-*/. sig of oneness.
As for the remainder, where I enshrined them, and for what reasons-if one should explain all these, this account though only by the way, would be a heavier task than that for the sake of which it is given.
@ Mind - All things
CF Context Float - word dependant upon context for meaning
SR Subjective Reality - percieved experience
