in compliance with orders from sSs: no words.-NAMERS
Not "no words." Fewer. Although your post, 'The Torment,' was fine because the images balanced the words.
Also, No -this is not the structure. Good guess.
I am becoming increasingly interested in these...characters? personas? ideas? names? categories? anti-categories? mystical steps? fragments of wholeness? words?Maybe I should read more William S. Burroughs.
"mystical steps"and"words"are closest.When you wrote a comment about the website fragmenting... that was the closest of all.But after fragmenting, then what?There is a next step.
oh, and I don't think Burroughs would be much help in figuring out what is happening here -which even I do not know. Nor Ummo. Nor even Matthew -though I suspect he has the a much fuller grasp than me.But Burroughs would help you, perhaps, get a glimpse of the foundation(lessness) of it all.Is that unbearably impenetrable? Sorry. I'm not trying to be dense. That's not the point. This riddle has a point beyond nonsense. I promise. I don't know what it is, in words. What I can say is that the riddle is hoping to guide you into its answer.Riddle?What?
foundationless, or beyond our foundationalisms? not sure why I pretend I have a clue what I'm talking about. I would like to register that I was duly fragmented and intrigued by those images.
I am certain I do not know what the word Foundationalism would mean. I doubt even the internetsSs could help me....except I was wrong. wikipedia tells me Foundationalism is any theory in epistemology that holds that beliefs are justified based on what are called 'basic beliefs.'So, now can I get a definition for the definition?erm, so i skimmed around online and i think i can say that foundationalism isn't all that related to what (i think) is happening here with me and the others.
well, I've lost what I was asking so no worries. I don't think wikipedia is what I meant but, like I said, its gone.meworea is my word verification
Post a Comment