good Shep!

lol but Shep this is what we’ve been talking about all along! our individual metaphysics and epistemologies! you cant tell me i “cant just say they are all not influence” lol! not without good reason—even if i am redefining a word—and frankly im shocked that you would attempt to stop me lol! since when are words absolutes? isn’t it rather their networked relationship to other words which is a kind of dynamic absolute? i absolutely reject the common conceptions of love and i feel no compassion for my opposition though this resolution has cost me nearly my life you could say (and my sleep 😂)—love is not sacrifice, no way; to love is to value i plainly say.. so to make all things simple, that’s all influence is to me, sacrifice, opportunity lost.. the diffusion of one’s self into empty space.. and whence there is light, speedily there is love.. so it might seem like im playing word games but its really the opposite, a precision rendering of my belief system, or at least a piece of the puzzle, a notion and motion of the ocean of my metaphysics.. not a dictionary debate.. conception is the key to inception.. your first steps shape your last so you dont move until you are certain.. of course im not inane i can use the word influence like a normal person lol and i think Wilde could too of course but the idea is to make a point, and quite literally my friend we are only pointing to what we are trying to say, one sound at a time, we never really say anything else.. more precisely, we can say that language is merely a mechanism of coordination (pragmatics) based on a closed set of meanings and operations (semantics/logic) i think i saw the etymology for semantic literally originally meaning “to point”.. but this kind of pointing that language is is deep and dynamic.. at a general level sure we both know *what is meant* by “love” and “influence” but yet we each have our own particular mean-ings for each, or our own particular conceptions which are not so obvious—even to ourselves at times—as to be easily pointed to with such general means… isn’t the entire purpose of scientific inquiry, in the most practical senses, about re-(higher)-definition.. greater and more efficient methods of compression and transmission? i could define influence more precisely now, and in the sense Wilde aims for, too.. but is there much reason to do so i wonder, at least considering how far this thread has come.. “oh where to begin” i wonder what we’ve woven and will weave through the nights and days, by the leave of the truth most exalted and most high

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *