justin paszul

One consideration resulting in three conclusions.

Consider x, above and below. Consider x a figment of the imagination, an imaginary plane bisecting an imaginary solid-spectrum prism. But above all else, consider x an opportunity; a grid; a chance to start freshly anew even before it is mathematically necessary. 

In the days before radio, before smoke, before even mirrors, we can imagine x as a kind of meeting-place, a rendezvous spot coalescing backwards through time, the accidental aftereffect of a not-yet-imagined echo of a not-yet imagined melding of geometry and flesh. We remember this only in passing, the last desperate screams of some flailing palsied blight-rattled Godhead, incapacitated and floundering, ricocheting between form and function, between mind and matter, between n^1 and n^∞ and hitting all the usual stops along the way.

Submitted as evidence (at a time when evidence is no longer enough) the case of one “TEPMИHATOP,” atop the one and betwixt the other, at the behest of all and sundry (three-score, to be precise, but who ever is, in this day and age? (& of course we are all aware that three-score can be simplified to its base components (the fifth of July on one hand, and the root of sigma/y on the other) were these things not deemed appropriate in polite (that is to say, politic) company (and from here on, let “the company” be represented by “The Company” and let the politic be represented not by a sampling of the ways and means but of the lymph and blood, divided evenly (rounded down, as is customary).)

Regardless (and let it be known, the committee (“The Company”) send our/its/his regards to none, and receive the same), what, in the eyes of the evidence, is a pair of legs? A pair of pairs of legs? Or a pared-down pair of either, or neither, or none? The evidence has its own thoughts regarding the matter, and as such, can be expressed simply as XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX, or less simply as e/∞. I know what you’re thinking, and trust me, it’s easier for us all this way. But back to the matter at hand: all things are matter, but not all things tend to matter (Au59, p. 79-83). And if you’ll forgive a further digression, why shouldn’t you forgive them all? The evidence would tend to agree, and you know what they say about evidence. Though that’s hardly the case here.

So we have the evidence (“TEPMИHATOP”) and we have the avenue (“x”) and we have the conflation of the two (let’s call it “demiurge,” let’s call it “Godhead,” let’s call it “e/∞,” the howling will continue no matter what side of the prism one finds oneself approaching). A line must be drawn somewhere, and that line is called µ. That line behaves as such: (DNE).

Conclusion: The splicing of demiurge is a myth and “TEPMИHATOP” is the method.

Conclusion: The isolated instances of consumption have, in their coming forward, only taken things back, and the isolation is mutual.

Conclusion.