“The transcendental imagination is without a homeland.” Heidegger.
Imaginary a space and the indicatives of timing in the concentrations of attention or the relevance of reference in accordance with the potentials of already existing data and the limits of that which must be formed anew. The impressions of data in elicitation and the realizations of possibilities in triviality and the ever constant pull of same-ness and proximities triumphing over the more accurate and real, the paradox and parable in the phenetic actuality of real connectivity. Structureless shapeliness and the changing of a limb of thought like a snowflake falling to different patterns according to the atmosphere, grew another dimension and then melted it away, prisms of light instantaneously portraying image and picture, in no particular place, storing these visions and compliments of scenery in potentials and gradients for future shapeless patterns. These quadrants of digestion to exist and take apart that which has never been seen before, that which without perspective could never be heard. These other dimensions in mind, never given a perspective, cannot be real? Or can make false reality from physiological constructs response to imagined stimulus? These other worlds within us, of silence clarity and stillness, of things that do not exist anywhere else in this universe of constant motion and sound and noise: actual silence, actual stillness, imaginings of a present moment, now a past. Still frame capturing parts of motion that we then fill in for with Fourrier transforms, imagined fluidity creating parts of dimension in motion and imagination, new shapeliness to form image and texture, to create a space in which something within could be recognized. Newness becoming the boundary limits to potential and gradient, the data itself the path itself, data the nutrients necessary to physiological constructs of risk assessments and global alarm mechanisms, the ways in which new data reforms old, and the possibilities in anything being actually new. The fragments of any other path to be found, the same letters or basic body, forming something new, forming new limits of possible creation in the future, stopping points of form to solidify change within boundaries of what has been created in the past. Similarities and paradox in structure or bodily limit, the shallows of patterns of indicatives based on these faint aspects of evolutionary structure, that one cannot help but share, compared with the comparison of the deeper aspects of phenetic collocation, especially in imaginary and mental event, which are physiological constructs.
The ways of attention, the given references to the stacks left wonderment and the times needed to intensify the ideas of the great beyond, of that which is unseen. The ease of assumption and application of meaning to events that coincide or signify others, of all the ways in which connection becomes something else, a miracle or magic to invest in. Instances of semblance and resembling actions already taken or noted, the mischief in individualist action and the assumptive process of crowds. Simplicity and expectation taken to measure the resounding reference of identifying mental event and working for attachment or meaning without really intending to, the ways in which we automatically compartmentalize that which happens to us or that which doesn’t, the automatic repetitions of space and reference we wouldn’t even notice that we make. A coincidence is plenty, and accidents happen far beyond any meaning or application of intensity that we could come up with, bargains for the space necessary to legitimate wonder and confusion, for time beyond that instant gratification of mystical claiming needed to investigate the reality of whatever mental event could reckon attention, could make a sense of togetherness feel more possible or the weight of individuality seem more bearable. Dreams and visions, the exactitude of garnering weights of passage beyond the ease of claimant mysticism, beyond the fervor of religion and outside the constraints of skeptical refrain, the possibilities to remain open and a closure themselves in persistence and attention: given another glance, the capabilities of flesh compared with the overwhelming sense of spirit, of that which is beyond human understanding but which still gives us some forms of presence. As the wind, we know not where it comes from or where it is going, we try to name and claim based on what facts could be gathered of such instances, of coincident, of accident, but fall short in base absolutions and assumptions readied to apply and displayed as though the only option of meaning were already applied, already absolute, already a sure sight of significance with no option for mystery or unknowing. Be comfortable not knowing, understanding the tricks and gimmicks easily applied and convincingly misused for the sake of supposed knowledge, for absolute answers where there really are none. Leave alone the possibility, remarks of passing worried refrain and diligence in seeking out reality from concentrated levies of mystifying signs and easily taken regard in ambiguity and great guessing. Fabricative coincidence for guessing games of similar instancing or multiplexing in a multiverse with the ambiguity of validity: it’s a certain grouping mechanism and great guessing based on potentiality and repetition with monotony most of the time, practiced closeness and mystifying potentials garnered weights of passage slightly above chance and forever removed from humane regards of thought and its predicaments. The ease and magic of reading, of the potentials we form for words even before they’re seen or spoken, of the predetermination that does not decide free will, that only really works because of so many potentials for other instances that could work or become likely enough, of the chance and change of volatile nature that reckons with the prefabricated parts of the mind to become measures of freedom and the freedom of choice and individual speculation. Any possible action could pass through my mind, any imaginable choice could become a real option, but doesn’t, and needn’t. Doxastic responsibility for epistemological normativity: the responsibility for unconscious urges or for that which is beyond control in conditioning of environments over long periods of time, products of environment to a certain degree applying whatever meaning we have been conditioned with oftentimes without even meaning to. Responsible seeking of the great beyond and that which tends to hold attention or garner interest based on conditioned environments and formulaic assumptions of past and future, of the here and now. What gets or is given attention, supposedly, and the obviousness of the ambiguity of validity: if ambiguous enough, any amount of guessing could seem accurate to a situation, and if practiced enough in monotonous and repetitive space, could try and attach meaning to any action as though some form of reaction or etcetera. In hopes for discernment, patience and diligent seeking of the reality of the situations made from mental event, given as unreal monuments of possibility and taken for absolute meaning. Diligence and the timing of forethought that needn’t be applied to great guessing games of the fake meaning given any amount of plain coincident or accident. Accidents happen, coincident is plenty.
The ephemeral distance between thoughts, the given anecdotes to distraction and the want for focus, the details and humdrum converging in limits to condone wonder: what tends to hold attention, what parts of thought are deemed important enough to actually participate in the medium of the mind and how many thoughts do we imagine or have that are never actually noticed? That which is just beyond thought and the thoughtfulness it takes to wonder about it, strange instances of conundrum and paradox, conversions of space that continually change and manifest more distances and possibilities in the spaces between wondering. Excitements and presentations of interest, the focal points of intensity and the ways in which voice is noticed internally: wind blowing through empty spaces of contemplation and deriving the postulates of contriving impression or actuality in mental event. At what point is it an actual mental event? How far and removed from any number of them could anyone be or become? Physiological constructs of imaginary spaces, of thought, mental and imaginary event consorting in focal devoid patterns according to potential and gradient, according to free will and the ability to actually focus upon any given matter. What differences would there be beyond record, and how close could any really get to the actual instance of thought or imagining? Impressions of space and the contrivances of manipulation, easily seen and avoidable messes of consciousness assured of absolutes and conditioning according to potential alone, as though that were all we really are…areas of the brain lit with excitement, dualism automatically incorrect, the distance from physiological presence imaginable, and as real to me as imaginary space: dualism and monism, that we cannot be separated from these physiological forms but is it possible we actually create imaginary spaces from physical space that exists? Could both simultaneously be correct? The doubtful concordances of interest and the want for the matter of mind to be recorded accurately, how far could we separate these simple machines from the ghosts within them? How far could thought be from the body and how close to actual record of it have we really gotten? Fallible writing, as close as one could get to the actual instance, but still far and removed: thoughtlessness and nothingness in writing and the distances imagined between thought and its record. Is writing actual record of imaginary and mental event, or something else? A formulate of the spaces between these simple machines and the ghosts within them or wanted record of the possibilities in inspiration and potentials being met as we make them for ourselves. Free thought and the want for accurate record of imaginary and mental event, of the distances from physiological space that are possible in imagination and inspiration, the exactitudes of excitement and impressions of reality from space that is anything but. Imagining ways to thoughtfulness, to constructs of thought and its capabilities, of that which could be imagined separated from these simple biological machines and the need for accurate record. It is a physiological construct of data regardless, and depends upon sense to be described: imagining these separations may be as close to any actual separation as we ever get. If I imagined it hard enough, I could be a glass of water, and everything and everyone in my environment would agree with me. I don’t want to trust my imagination for reality, but is it possible that non-matter and non-space manifest from within physiological construct? What aspects of spirituality are allowed in this type of discussion and where does that leave thought and its accurate record?
Missing Section? Big Ideas, abstract largeness, free thoughts particians from the state are to be found in solid universities and colleges, much easier to bear and more difficult to differentiate that in the Poor Man’s University. The Library as the greatest tutor. The actually free educations offered in the United, Stated truently, the Library or […]
The differences and similarities in defense, the instinct and imagination necessary to thought and that which is beyond focus or attention. The distances of thoughtlessness and the contrivances of daylight, the fragments of movement in falling or rotting motion, the distinctions of space in that which is distal or the space imagined empty or blankness, the silence clarity and stillness of physiological construct and the ways in which movement escapes memory. The ability to forget imagined blank space to fill in potential, resting and active conditions of interest or investment and the stillness of that which is remembered or these supposed absolutes in conditions for separations between thought, memory and imaginary, the actuality in that which is senescence, the differentiation in any perspective: supposed limits of imagination or these portions of daylight parted to particularity in prisms of shade and the shapeliness of shadow, these dimensions of invention and the wanted supposition of timing for difference or these places beyond time, these definite physiological spaces and their actuality in constructs of chemical and electrical conversions of conditioning and environment. The actuality of that which is mental and imaginary event cannot be decided, let alone the differences in thought, memory, and imaginary, the actuality of that which is measurable and the distances in charting, the portions of position in potentiality and that which is always partial. The idea of wholeness in environment or timing tricking into flim-flam belief in distances that don’t measure up, in perspective sense to beset entire environment based on imagined meaning, cause, reason or whatever could be manufactured of the absolute divination or ‘divining’ of what must be information or imagination, what must be mental and imaginary event, whatever [biased systemic] perspective could singularly decide for an entire crowd the differences in their own perspectives. The accuracy in that which is imaginal, there is no particular place or value to the imaginal, there are no set limits and never will be. Imaginary is imaginary. The exactitude of instinct and imagination, the ways in which imagination could seem to be shared in shared environment or the ways in which connectivity and continuer depend upon imagination, the imaginal and the perspective sense of that which is actually analogous to me and my movement and action and behaviors. The difference and similarities in proximity and paradox don’t make as much sense nor hold as much accuracy as decent myth or fable and parable in poem of rhetorical situation, and how many myths does any one lake have about it? And how many yellow submarines could investigate with no recourse? These figures of interest and the curiosity usually figured in that which is beyond sense or these perfections of guessing games for similar instancing the ease of connectivity in that which is formulaic and that which is isolated. The discretion in that which is first and the morphological underpinnings of suppositions on deep time that mean the assumption of a wholeness that does not exist and apriory of perspective in environment sure of influence or connection that does not either and that has no need. The necessity in nature and the volatility of change and difference, especially defense, the volatility and beauty of change in nature and that which is reckoned as though decidable. The underpinnings of morphological weight or the conditions of reference and record tricking us into portrait assurances of being that do not make sense. Random data and the generalities of that which is actual, the differences in decision and these portions of daylight meeting dust within me, the source-less electric within contrasting in electric with these prisms of natural light, creating shades of dimensions and conditioning reality to placements of value and perceptions of stillness. The figures of solidity and the vibratory patterning between different states of matter, stated differences in vapor or the conditioned leniency in swamp gas and the reality of wanted wonder producing amazement no matter what. Self fulfilling prophecies and cognitive distortions [personalization] upon space and time, the suppositions of supposed wholeness and the assumption of stillness that cannot be applied. Purity, naturally and applicability in that which needs to and does definitely exist, the silence clarity and stillness in nature and the perception of cause, reason or meaning therein, the want for actual underlying principle instead of shallow proximity paradox and circumstance. Symmetry and asymmetry in lighting?
Thoughtlessness, the values of space and pause, the distances in reloque and that which contains or exists within, the limits to environmental variable and assumptions upon space beyond me, these portions of daylight we could pretend to contain, a flashlight or the scatter of its light to any point it reaches, the limits of measurement and the saturation of notice or that which is contained within the light released with sight and feeling, the differences in supposed containment and the instruments of usefulness that could even pretend to produce this light from within or pretend to contain anything illuminated by it. A bright bulb that glows with the after effects of being lit, ([why?]) the alpenglo that lights prisms of disappearing in sunset, caught in portions of horizon escaping in color, illuminated paths of glancing. The same exact sunrise or set will never happen, the distances in what could be illuminated by invention, the best I could do for beauty is shadow puppets against the assurances of illuminations belonging or any part brought to that light suddenly distorted, closed to the saturation of this one beam, this memory which could escape in all this light within, could refuse and escape the mean glare of artificial light.
Magnificence, the notable or granting contrivances of vision according to the imaginary space that digests information beyond our actual senses. The metabolism of dreams or the lifespan of an imaginary event: postulates of figures we contrive in the divisions of laborious task, time and the management of the process we imagine having influence over. Convinced significances of desecration and the limits given in normality or the conditions of constantly changing while remaining the same wholeness. Sense for wholeness, metabolism of lifespan, the things that are supposed to stay dead. Lost cause and missing information, the friction of inspiration or the myth of motivating factors beyond actual accident or coincidence. Any cause, any more meaning, the necessary to opportunity or the needed for controlled commons. Measured significance, magnifies the splendid to whatever perspective seems befitting, momentary gifts or drifts, inspiration and the naming of imaginary events to the meanings we are as portrayal. Reconvenes the harshness to quandry of possibility, the driven endings to the deadened past: proximal limitations to personhood. Figures, the parting actualities frequent the lost or damaging missing pieces, blame the mis-fitting knowing nothing was never meant for a place. Hold lonesomeness to no place, divert the easily mistaken horribly confused mysticism for the balancing of actual coincidence. Whole organisms, unto self alone, these constantly shifting axis points reconvene the daytime to splits in jarred textures of medium, cut diadem like a cation to a non-sense region, splatter vernacular randomness for coincidental absorption. Picking up random lettering schemes in charted lists of the possibilities between the numbered significance. Nominal nomials, the best wishes for actually picking out what symbols tend to take to certain cutting or edging, the figures that define and derive us in shapeliness imagined as event in mind. Envisioned precision to imaginary events and charting the significance as though any cause or meaning would be ready and applicable irregardless, and ever must be part of some sort of longer list. Options in opportunism, whatever yuh needed…
In the invariability and constraint of assumption and potential, nature does not plan the future, nor does it need to. Nature a separate field or innate and departed from us, knowledge as separate field and the tendency to assume infinitum: the apriory of infinitum in the assumptive potential of interaction or environment. The habitual and innate, variability and volatility: nature doesn’t need guess work for future problems, and solves them as advancement irregardless of the options or obstacles. That which knowledge of nature could never reach and decidable limits to the possible combinations of instances of interaction with environment. Knowledge and inspiration as innate and also entirely apart from us, imaginary to be assumed beyond biological construct is a mistake, and a dangerous one. Imaginary is a physiological construct of silence, clarity and stillness as physiological constructs of non-space or nothing. These spaces within the body that could very well produce such actions and reactions as those that would be necessary to guessing games of similar instancing are prevalent and common throughout the body, especially in inflammation and retention in plasticity. Knowledge beyond knowledge, these imaginary confirmations of suppliant skill share and the persistence of individuality as the obvious goal in most growth, nature as knowledge in separate field, a part of nature and the idea itself of being so separate, that very same capability in imagination. The indescribable sense of imaginary beyond words for sense, the idea of all-knowing and everything and that which knowledge of nature could never reach in imaginary space. Knowledge beyond nature? Incessant power of suggestion and the inopportune accident and coincident claimant to removals and refusals of any claiming of personas of conditioned expression and motion confused for emotion in the ideas of body and being. Shapeliness beyond the devices of space, of self, illimitable imagination and the powers of confabulation. Disenchanting and formulaic refusals of misinterpretations’ dangers and the trepidation of mind and being beyond oneself imagining as though separate or innate. Could only ever be in one place at one time, imaginary is imaginary and the transforms of possibility and capability in blind spots and great guessing have lost entire centuries of rhythm and information to paradox and proximity. Volatility and the risk assessments intended to curtail progress especially cater to systems with the most upset and counter-reactive possibilities in transforms, too dangerous and confidential, these natural constructs of imaginary space and the ease of misinterpretation in differencing machines. How could we measure our differences to nature, were we not so far beyond in imaginary? We have inventions to tell us we’re so much more separate, to assure us of our safety from the wilderness. More variants and volatile seeming situations are necessary to growth, and nature depends upon growth in homeostasis, not defeats and competitions. Not safety. Nature doesn’t guess, but grows: cannot be wholly separate or definitely innate, and doesn’t necessarily construe knowledge.
The differences in sight and the catching of a glance in diagonal, the Gutenberg diagonal and the capability in focus and organization of field. The limits of the ideas of focus, the mythological perception that our eyes narrow in on parts of our environment actually means that other parts are then out of focus or blurred. The ways created by lenses and the capability in the human brain to try overcompensating for the bifocal polar regions inability to narrow down the input information beyond hexagons for a curtailing assumption in quadrants of sight or linearity in distinction of frame. Eyes cast aside mean the same for each pair, each part of the same sequential movement and accommodation of environment in the mythology of stillness or infinity. Temperature and movement as determinants of time beyond assumptions of eternity or infinity depend upon imaginary space and discern in accordance with the accomidations to infinitum that assume stillness and silence as well. Inward creation, to have happenstance in meaning and cause according to expression or derivatives of recombinative assumptive sight in variants of visions from assumed imaginary space and the connectivity in apriory. Freedom of association, especially of the things that must have captivated us or attention, that must have been of notice or note to us based on postural reflexes, or what the assumed cause and value of the connection could or would be. The conventions and inventions of interactions and the environment’s coercion of imaginary event in conveying meaning to happenstance and causation/continuer. Caused or continued, only an assumption of conglomerated endings would confer the idea of everything being continued (infinitum) and/or of everything having “cause” or purpose. How could coincident be recorded accurately by time or resemblance in instancing of moments of particularities in isolation?! Happenstance and coincident maybe aren’t a “cause” for the measure of time. Accuracy in the record of imaginary event and the differentiation of self from imagined interactive parts of the environment, from every single little connection that meant part of self on a shelf. Actual accident or coincident, when assimilated in meaning or attachment to event, leave mythological record of simultaneity of event and coincident of happenstance. Actual information in the mythology of time and the records of supposed similarity making the record of actual coincident and imaginary more difficult in expectancy limits and inaccurate risk assessments based on pendulums and the expectation of event to prometheate eventuality and the ease in timing for inaccurate record of similarity and assimilation.
The differences in attention to the great beyond, the mystical claiming of coincidence and the portions of accident used as though applicable when barely attached based on simple ambiguity. The usefulness of the ideas of the spirit, the exactitude of wanted space from the incessant guessing games for fabricative coincidence that could apply meaning from any environment, that could become any amount of doxastic responsibility if tried hard enough. The exchangeable limits of reason and the chances that mean freedom of choice and will beyond any predetermination of thought or capability in guessing. The ease of application of any amount of accident or coincident to a monotonous repetitive environment, the seeking out of actual reality beyond the ease of mental event applied to any instance of thought or action. Beyond any guessing at knowledge predetermined or ill caste before us, there is possibility at other chance, at choice, at change. Free will and the bargains against it: the great guessing of environments becoming a problematic sense of determination of mental events, coalescing the outer limits of reason and purchasing chance refrains of potentiality and slivers of environment projecting parts of itself from epistemological norms. Envisioned possibilities in the ideas of mystical claiming as they usually are, applying absolute meaning and attention given no option of actual digestion and deciding intrigue based on the impossible limits of attentive gaze: accidents happen, coincident is plenty. The ambiguity of validity assuring sights of great guessing while leaving truth to portent and tales of mental events and their grand experiences: the need for discernment and patience in regards to any amount of mystical or skeptical claiming. The meaning applied to any coincident, to any chance speculation of that which is slightly beyond us, to real change in the volatility of nature and the possibilities not taken as absolutes. That which we automatically assume or have been conditioned to accept or defer based on past experiences and current environment becoming blinders to the reality of that which cannot be claimed or maimed by chance reason found in coincident or accident. That no matter how warped and unjust any amount of coincident or accident could become, and far beyond any application of mental event to any amount of meaning wanted from them, chance choice and individualist free will exist and permeate far beyond the predetermination that finds its ease in applicative coincident or accident. It is predetermined that we have free will. That which holds attention cannot be bargained for, and the ambiguity of validity can prove itself time and again in great guessing at coincident and accident that needn’t be claimed to a certain meaning to have resonance, that don’t control actual chance or real choice and that cannot be expected to any one mental event’s significance.
Imagining coincidence, the capabilities in actual accuracy in record of a coincident or mental event, the capacity for observation and the tendency to add to any certain event from personal beliefs or experience. The need for accurate record of imagined event and the actuality that most coincidence is an imagined event cannot be separated: imaginary is imaginary, but can be applied to reality through character, figure and situation applying thought memory and imaginary, and through attitude performance and behavior. Defunct patterns of human fragility, the mentions of actual coincident are few and all rely upon personal experience: to say you observe is an opinion. Apart from the claimant nature of some mysticism, coincident in nature in the volatility of change and the anachronistic evolution of certain species could define actual coincidence beyond the shallow claimant nature of most record of testimonial account. There are plenty of examples of similarities in…
The visions between sight and the gaps of language left to the imaginary senses beyond sense that instruct with instinct, that derive potentials from medium to absorb in conditioning and gradient. These, same pathways and the recurb of newness or the ever pressing need to reconsider the futurism that must contain every part of everything, that must condition each accordingly. These mechanical bodies, they lift or pull in rotation and reference, in postural reflexes and repositioned spasms of thought or possibilities in movement. Always at ready, resting, or supposed in stillness or each anew with other potentials and significance decidable as the monitoring. The mythology in pushing weight or the retraction of selflessness as impossible to the movement of each of my limbs: gathered onto itself and expanding while contracting. Fluctuations of discernment in the devices commonly allotted the significance of emotions or movement that comes from imaginary, that frequents…
And Or Theory 