Talk Is Perfect Defense Mechanism–Barbed Wire Guarding Itself
AKS/News Items = None ( Kneeded )
AKS/News Gallery = None ( Kneeded )
Summary = See below
Transcript = None
Curation = 4D Science
#617 Mar 5, 1990 – 1:06
Notes by TK
Possible Names for This Thing (0:02) and Kyroot to :09. Mathematics: the labeling by numbers rather than names, denotation vs. connotation; it is the attempted objective vs. subjective. Math is the singular original attempt to base a language on objectivity. The introduction of math gave rise to the distinct impression (unanalyzed) that info could be had which was shorn of all subjective bias. It is the grand grasp for verbal consistency. But note that in life there is widespread disinclination, indifference verging on outright hostility, towards numbers. Thus men demonstrate preference for the inconsistent and subjective. There is a kind of safety in using numbers—making the user less vulnerable to attack for subjective bias, for prejudice.
All talk is an “equation of sorts”. An equation is a comparison of a previous known to a new unknown. This is equivalent to subjectively putting a new number on a previously known number This Thing is a “super angular mathematics”, an objective language but in words rather than numbers. This Thing offers a transitory consistency, but a consistency of non-enforced formal outcome, i.e., open meaning, omni-formal definition. The Real Revolutionist uses words without caring what their local definition is; he uses words in the universal sense. This Thing is a kind of Esperanto for yourself, a common language within all parts of the brain.
Digital alternatives (if/when here/there; here/here are integral to “talk the great distancer”. If you cannot distance (think about, speak about) yourself from what you are doing, then you cannot really know what you’re doing. Talk serves itself, is its own master. Talk is a servant with its own strategy and goals, therefore it is the perfect defense mechanism, like a barbed-wire fence guarding itself.
Nothing will be seen to be consistent when analyzed in less than full dimension of its reality. Thus the most inconclusive evidence may be the most conclusive proof possible at the 3-d level.