Untitled

The divination of daylight, the light that comes from within or that which is external, these small parts of dust that could formulate a reckoning or question within me. The thoughtlessness beyond words and the ways in which focus deciphers space or stillness, the potential in any portrait to fit and the lengths and depth of the myth needed to fill in for any stoic, static portrait sense of being. The actuality of environment and natural inference, and the ways in which we have tricked time with reference and record. All this perfect, pre-fect timing for guessing games and the actuality of self and perspective far beyond any guessing: the ways in which timing can trick any predicament. The careful assumption of pause and the silences in any workmanship or conversation: what could be taken of timing and pause? Of postural reflex or any other complex of situations that could fit and make sense for recombinance but that have very little to do with the human condition or nature at all. The differences in apriory, these for free thought and the actuality of free will, so many others for the claiming of others privacy and private perspective...The actuality of difference in that which is causing real change in nature, and the volatility of any actual change that occurs naturally. The want to control and contort data and the environment based on shallow similarities and proximities is nothing new, the actuality of connectivity and continuer is beyond guessing games for similarities based on mostly timing and postural reflex that assumes not only a stillness that doesn't exist, but also a control over environment that isn't healthy. As well as a wholeness to environment which will never actually exist to us. The excitability of any idea or imagining, the particularity of any mental or imaginary event to be decided in the wild with any amount of variable and imagined complete, a wholeness. The environment will never be whole or entire to me or any other conglomerate or personal perspective or system. The actuality of systemic reach in nature and the volatile, chaotic actuality of change. Is the system causing more chaos to the order of nature or more chaos to the human orders we've tried to put to nature? The actuality of underlying principle in science and the circumstantial proximities that could supposedly prove anything for the instance. For instance, anything could work to recombine or make sense, that doesn't mean it's beneficial nor does it mean that the data 'belongs'. Which part of this daylight recombined for which particle of dust and who thinks they could claim it? Whether the light that caused this thoughtlessness was internal or external, an any other number of possibilities in superstition that could amount to likely-enough mythology to trick the sights of most norms into believing fabricative coincidences for guessing games of similar instancing or and using the ambiguity of validity to pretend to multiplex in a multiverse. Timing relevance with the assumption of stillness and unnatural contortions of the environment to seem personal or to seem whole, the actuality of thought and movement far beyond those tricks of involuntary reference and record. The decidability of indeterminable data is still indeterminable, but that's just a guess. Dust particles perfecting succinct motion, the rime in the air, still wondering at all this muddied atmosphere and such clean rain. The weight of water and the differentiation in states of matter, the pressures, temperatures, and the friction of weight given any interaction and the actuality of solidity never really as steady as we feel. The electricity actually present in the atmosphere and the ways in which particles could pretend to decide or the ways in which chemical and electrical conversions could predetermine morphological structure. Look, a hole in igneous doesn't have to be filled in with silicates, right? Maybe? As though some part of inanimate decision? The actuality of chemical and electrical messengers and the reality of communication need a little more serious consideration...The environment to decide things for us, the horror of group-decision and the reality of necessity in Democratic Republic. The group does not philosophize or decide anything, especially not for the individual. The environment does not decide nor communicate for the individual, communication depends upon will and those assumptions upon chemical and electrical 'messengers' are horrifying at best. Nociception and the actuality of depth and breadth to any singular chemical/electrical conversion, the amounts of separation from one and the idea of decidable connectivity, again, cannot be conducive to deciding for the individual, nor their environment, what a natural interaction is/would be or even what exactly MUST have taken place.