From Writing
“A man rose one day from a large rock he was sitting upon to look down at the ground under his feet. He spat in the grass to his side, then picked up a different, small rock close to where he was sitting, and brought it close to his face. He imagined something inside of the rock in his hand as he stared at it, which caused human emotion to suddenly stretch across his face. The rock rose in his hands as he stretched his arms into the air above his head, then he began to throw the rock downward with great force upon the larger one. When the rocks collided, debris from the collision scattered across the ground all around. The noise from the impact quickly subsided.
“Shards of smaller rock sat freshly partitioned into slivers. The man took one of the larger slivers into his hand and uttered something under his breath, followed by amazement according his countenance. He squeezed the rock with enough force to then find a fresh cut dripping blood from his palm, as the rock had become sharp at the spot where chips of itself broke off. His knees bent so his hands could reach the ground. His hands grasped some dry dirt, which then dressed his wound. His mouth spoke again with reaction, but not to anyone and not of anything in particular. He continued to work the shape of the rock to better match the image of the finished product of it he had in his head.”
There are laws to argument. There exist laws in the fabric of the universe that people are always meant to be trying to figure out. The syntax of conversation encodes the laws somehow. As a blur at first, but then through repetition becomes clear. It is through reiteration, a practicing of the scenarios in our minds, then a rearrangement of the possibilities of what could have happened that makes what we think important. It is by a sort of argument that we understand better the laws of argument; circularly we argue the laws which turn around our thoughts and causes us to improve the laws we initially set our gaze upon to argue. Perhaps that is the purpose of existence. To figure out this argument. To see the laws in the fabric of our daily lives and to decide that there needs to be something common in our group understanding of the event, then needing a denotation of it according which reestablishes the laws in a way better suited to making apparent the initial individual comprehension of the law. We find words to say what we mean, but only when we see that there is something we mean to say.
To the original man, it was an inspiration of some kind. He found that the force of his proceedings, his hand striking together rocks, caused the rocks to break. It was a conversation through argument. Firstly, the rock argued it could not be broken, where the man saw that his strength was great and so begged to differ. Then the rock argued it could not be useful; it could not be sharp. As the man cuts his hand on the newly found sharp edge of the rock, it becomes clear to him that the rock’s apparent lack of fragility was only meant to make the man repudiate his actions. In this state, the existence of the sharp utensil purports the universe wants only to hurt the man who endeavored to dispute the original meaning of the rock’s existence. Just as the man endeavored previously, he will continue. As such the argument will go on according with the man’s own dissatisfaction with the universe.
I believe this arguing to be a sort of mathematics that we are always trying to better. It is something that should have been perfect as the viewport in front of us, mathematics, that when found to be imperfect lead us to try to correct it. That is because this sort of mathematics should have been correct and verifiable (such is this definition of mathematics). It is a contradiction to say that the mathematics consisting of true statements leads one to formulation of one of the statements as false. Were it not for the contradiction, however, the laws of mathematics would be inconsistent in that it did not contain the contradiction, but were it not for the contradiction nobody would attempt to argue better the laws of argument. And so it goes.
The best minds say that there is only time to limit the things able to be accomplished, and so it should be this amount of time to limit what it is exactly that people /want/ to accomplish. Through this idea we consider how it was that people were affected through time by human circumstances. In the primordial moments, people argued the laws to decide the commonalities of utterances. People determined a language. How does someone sound confused compared to enlightened for example, or how does one sound happy as opposed to sad? What kind of noise should be made by the mouth to transmit the appurtenances of one’s sensations? Following this idea, there must surely must be agreement on the sides of both parties according to each of their personal experiences. But how could only a vocalization transmit such an abstract concept that is found so commonly between them? This must be a law of an argument asking to be argued. It is a principle of the process of conversation asking to be made worthy to ensure membership to the set of axiomatic principles of regular conversational statements.
“He stripped the bark from the side of the tree with a sharp hand ax. The man then shaved fibers from underneath and carefully collected them into long groupings. Eventually he saved up a couple handfuls of the wood residuals which he found to be pleasing. He spoke out in triumph, then with gay excitement began twiddling the lengths between his fingertips, making them stick together to hold a shape longer and longer as he continued the process binding them together. All the while he rhythmically articulated the music he found in nature around him.
“Once he gathered several lengths of the bound fibers that he meticulously strung together, he began to carefully fold them. His turning fingers braided together a convolution matching the image of what he sought to form in his head. With the distance thus far created he wrapped waist fully with it measuring his bodily circumference. His facial expression was that of great human satisfaction. After encircling himself with the string one more time, he tied a knot to secure its two ends, then smiled.”