2. All thought-patterns in known cheese-space generally subscribe to the fiction of the "knowable" -- i.e., that which is thunk/thought/ or "known" through hegemonically pre-assigned sign-systems, of which you are a part. It is generally the case that you are not what you think you are, insofar as thinking makes you other than "you." The ideological predisposition of your thoughts are known to you through your absinthe (metaclarital) octave pattern, that which does not subscribe to any known pattern save for what the Romantics called the divine, i.e., the sublimated consciousness of an Other not known to follow any live patterns of embedded/embodied consciousness.
3. Insofar as "you" are in the mode of "objection" to the preceding sign-system's ideological awareness / sign-base and choose to "reject" its oppositional narrative of white/black either/or in favor of a meta-nodal disjunction whereby the known and the unknown can be merged, "you" should know that the di-stream consciousness dictator which we have tended to isolate under ideal conditions in the form of "radicalism" is a generally-consistent wave-function that tends to result in the premature death of the "thinker" of this wave-function. That is, you are welcome to embrace disjunctive temporary solipsism in the hope of finding/making more palatable sign-systems, but the degree of acceptability / interoperability of your sign-system using awareness will tend to be less permeable the further you travel from the "meta-narrative."
4. In the event you have dictated this path due to ignorance of the particular signs involved -- i.e., is "fun-having" any more or less significant or veiled with meaning than "having fun" and is a "fun-haver" the same as someone who has fun? Certainly we avail ourselves when possible to clarify the usage of our terms here if the difficulty of your meta-nodal / reactionary consciousness in its particular junctures at this moment is primary due to the inherent ambiguities in our usage as previously described. Certainly, in the event, we can point out that having fun generally does not involve having much of anything, but is rather experiencing fun, allowing yourself to be swung and aped by its bio-stasis energies in the interests of relieving stress, etc. The "fun-haver" on the other hand, must by inordinately placing himself out of this feedback loop, oppositionally position himself/herslef/itself in the paradoxical position of wishing to "own" fun, to possess it as you would an object. We should note too that the particular referent-module attachable to this "fun-haver" sign does not yet have a generally- consistent wave-function it can be described with. There are, however, several intriguing possibilities that can further clarify the potential applicability of this model.
5. For the dictatorially-aligned consciousnessated selfhood, i.e., "you," if "you" is the generally stable meta-nodal wavepoint that tends most often to align itself with "proximity to power" and "regeneration of the self" and "eternity" and "meteoric rise to godhood," the illusion of the ownability of fun can be your styx-matrix in the event of consciousness meltdown in your subjects, -- i.e., the promise of "fun," as a deliverable product, may temporarily assuage some of the more grievous effects of being controlled by your dictatorial consciousness.
6. For the ambiguated consciousness entity that does not wish to ascribe unambiguously to either "having as possessing" or "having as experiencing" fun, we may posit that the "fun-haver" is one who both contributes to an awareness of the inappropriateness of the possessive verb "to have" in this experiential idiom, and who enjoys "having" fun, whatever "having" might mean in this context. Further, we might posit , that the "have" here can mean "tending to relate to a particular mode of being" and is thus allied with the idea that you "have" dreams or that you "have hunger" -- while these are instead states of being that you experience, of course, insofar as "you" and "states of being" are generally consistent wave-functions, etc. In this case, you can clearly answer in the affirmative if you willing to posit yourself interstitially between the two alliances of our have-possessive-parallel paradox, positionally speaking.
7. For the Grecian-urn reader of Keats, i.e., thinker/thought/known complex of "I" who might tend in the ideal circumstances to view the thought process itself and the embodied process of being "happy" with the experience of "fun" involved, you may be said to have "individuated" your "existential priority system" when you can contemplate the "meaninglessness" of your "having" anything known by an experiential term , i.e. "fun", while simultaneously allying yourself with the fleeting nature of experience, and in which case you must then ironically position yourself as a grabber after known constants -- i.e. -- the temporary realm of experience is all that is "known" and is hence all that can be "had" or "experienced" and so the inapplicability of the sign-system model "having" only underlines the inoperability of your languaged consciousness in this universe, with all ironical disposition you might take thereof. In this case, yes is definitely your preferred answer, and many praises be sung in your honor.
--Hallelujah, bonker, bonkers, aloha.
|
< |
|