I really like this too, and it is not prompted by trying to squezze into a parenthetical in between , and not really anywhere on a continuum between jeolousy-envy – vanity; but on the rigourously excluded. phenomenally inclined language barriers .(2).
So liking this 2, barraging salad without dressing:
"I really do like this: “Not seeing something in terms and sets of connotations and denotations of an internally constructed world - but in a more honest lived, survival based way less rational more emotionally logical.”
the only part of the construction that has to be differentiated For me and/or anyone is the difference, the differencial diagnostic simulation between the denoted and connoted structural difference.
The denotated formed out of an author for whom 6 characters are looking for, come from an inexhaustible depth, preset ages and generationally cyclically diminished levels to absurdum ages ago, like Russian dolls, the last of which like a tiny Alice screams and lies in wait for a godot.
Dogs, like me much because they understand this distinction of exclusion from the price one pays for this glaring but subtle distinction and in their own way, they feel the pull of energy that draws the curtain apart to the image if a scene in which they can always merely be spectators and they really can answer their own questions.
They are home alone and the source is the ultimate paradigmn unfiltered and unbound by sufficiently reasonable fiat.
The frightful demon equates narcissus with a jealous god, but thats solved only by sleight of hand, faustian trick.
The absurdity of dressing the salad only comes to light when the child alludes to the nakedness of the unclothed king.
The phenomena is constructed out of connoted structural hierarchy, deconstructed by very early learning that can still adhere to formal construction, cause of growing lapses of memory.
It takes marginal exclusion never to forget. Which us depends on intensional objective will to power that search engine.
Is there a primal retension of a simulated program which can recall the earliest general basis for constructing simulation in the first place? Will be the dilemma such a program will face, after an evil big brother elimininates its nemesis: US.
That includes You, me & everybody and us the USA as well.
So what is my bottom line , and Yours as Kropotkin used, uses to say?
(Another thought seemingly irrelevant- if cultural dispossession or personal reduction ( regression) occurs , such as can phenominally shared constructed on the above feral level , the how come the irony of consumption in real and simulated tets?
Dogs are literally used and bred as food products, while dogs figuratively eat out if the hands of the minded masters whose hands they have learned well not tk bite? That irony cannot escape either.
Nietzche’s preoccupation for the horse in the famous whipping scene can’t escape attention )
Or even earlier connotations of the master slave relationship as Levi Strauss the jeanetic obsession could teach a dog? Nah, that"s a stretch ,but nothing to get hung about.
