And why is a philosophy forum, on the other hand become a menu for synctatic neo-positive assertions, delimiting essential associations toward tautology rather than the potential for wider essayed resourceful exploration ?
Why such stricture of interpretation reduce architectural aesthetics into a pointallistic minimalism, without connection to the meaning of that essay?
I think that kind of process sets the margins of description into a position of contexts that are programmed deferentially by a definite model that delimits it’s self unto a regression ad absurdum.
Not that the absurd has not at any time been an art-firm, pervy to the charge of misunderstanding, but absurdity has lost it’s legs to stand on the very solid ground that needed to be demonstratedly shown to stand on.
So critics can not declare absurdity the art form unintelligible, while claiming intelligently that it has no grounds of becoming an art form, thereby asserting it’s negation of having no describable ground.
Then they send it up into the stratosphere where they duly belong, denying it’s credible source’d progression.
Impressions of the world as described at the level beyond it’s vocal exoression, it’s self are intended as well with merely one stroke of the brush.
We the world turns, to be sure, but admittedly at a vastly sped up turn to be sure.
Ideally, it’s pretty bad for those, that would rather it revolved minimally, and they call that surpassed.
Even those who can claim they are over it, are appraised as such, even if it stands up to their disadvantage, or in a light of recessed artistic distance or points of interest in relation to the depth of expression projected as grounded in denial.
Message: the modern phenomena do nit freely give much slack to conventional interpretation
Or, where does, if at any time does 'poetic license have legitimacy?