Reason and Rhyme: The prelinguistic turn

Has there ever been a step in the Occident that contravenes the change of discourse? Hmm.

Has there ever been a step in the Occident that? Hmm.

The problem of fashion - for me - is that it is nameable by savant idiots and idiot savants alike. However, to make a distinctive eloquent sequence of verbal gestures about anything does not move the "si" and the "is". Yes, to me the savant idiot "si's" to much and the idiot savant is the modern solipsist qua philosophy prelinguistically, too much of an "is" from the outside, but worst of all its internal mirrors shine without the gods complaining about its Hubris, or in short: "What is it about behaviour that makes people automagically go.. "yes"? "Narcissus!"

When you hear someone utter, "These advanced techniques...", I hope for this occasion that you want to hear something that fosters your imagination. But I am a protean thinker of thoughts and like to fashion myself as thinkerer of unsecular particularities while ad libbing my way through gnosis by way of serendipity haha.

So I ask, ""si"-like", the following thing to you my dear reader by way of exclamation:

"How can our savant idiocy be idiomatic while our idiots are savant?"

I Exclaim completely and doubly here: "Why do didy- or poly- mous nods (brrr, the air I imagine from this! I could have gotten Goosified!) at principles that we understand?”

It satisfies the occasion and burns down the house only... Right? It makes me resound Elias Canetti’s Crowds and Power which I haven’t finished yet: “It is only in a crowd that man can become free of this fear of being touched. That is the only situation in which the fear changes into its opposite. “ Oh hack, I'm going too quickly here! Yes..

Some.., fat.., twat..! This century is. Imaginary Hell! For as far as I know only the subspaces of genius are the places I do not dislike. So that essentially makes me some kind of self-imagining Hubris and, to the outside, a pedestrian alternating currents with predictability and proteanism.

Sigh..

Yes, the prelinguistic turn...

So I could crypto-summarise the above as follows:

"Hybris is having no feet".

And indeed, this radical approach should be "fashioned" as follows: "Having no feet whilst being able to move, is not god like, it is a technicality".

May I remind you of:

"Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth." - Archimedes

The frivolity of this each time strikes me as the most frivolous of genius I know. And indeed, frivolity is that which distinguishes the pedestrian from the god. I actually feel my eyes get soft at this point, I fashion my imagination to be of Greek ascent and experience a moment of height, not in the spatial sense though, but in the being movement without feet.

Essentially, this turn (prelinguistic) for me signifies the movement of bodies without feet. How can one imagine a turn being made without innate position? Well actually it is easy, simply utter it. How elusively evident is that? Right, however what you understand should not conform in my eyes to formalism. The question is, will it socially be information to rely on? (That without the turn.)

Actually it is a suggestion which encourages you to continue your road to fashion which is signification in other words. Yes, a friend of mine uses the words: "Ad Autoratum" jokingly in this case, but it has seriously been fashioned in my mind so I try to construct sentences that are commensurable with the imagination. Yes, I intuit Hubris as being the epitome of the homo significans but without being significant. The homo significans is the savant idiot whereof one can speak. However the ones without feet move outside the “spheres of significans” in this regard and may I remind you of Archimedes? I really do not want to sound like a psycho-fetishist but I really, really also feel the urge to speak with authenticity for a moment. But not more then a moment. I just want to taste it and enjoy the reproduction of worlds in a frivolous way and indeed without the feet.

So at last. I've had my first intuition after, well its proper here, I think: