What is a book but manual?

Is it just, using an alchemical apparatus within a story?


an alchemical apparatus used to drive the plot, scaffold the story structure, and/or function, also, as a skeleton key?

Transmutate to into art.

The reader and/or audience undergoes the Cathartic process,

like enzymes provoke.

The Apparatus drives the substance of letters/words toward catharsis.

Our story’s technical equipment enables a bunch of words

to BeRead by an audience or reader of the collection.

In this way, words transmutate to a collection, set, Sum, somme

that somehow be-came greater than the sum of its parts

This alchemical thing is but primarily a piece of technical (albeit ‘unscientific’) apparati that is taken-up, in itself, and then applied to a bunch of words such that when those words are taken-up [sic. in the abstracted sense], an epiphenomenon emerges on a different level of scale.


He said, “Slick-you don’t hafta put effing limitations on the goddamn variables in a dynamic system! Like, the more chaotic the individual parts of a dynamic system are, then the more effing potentialities or organizational principles may be exploited and checked out for utility and efficiency. Why lock in and hoover when the shit will regulate itself eventually? Hmm? Why is it that everyone effing assumes that organic self-organization is so uncommon? … Well, you can still call it uncommon, I suppose, like…shit, like uh, as uncommon as a not great hand of poker.”

She said, “You mean if liberty is completely maximized, despite the appearance of chaos, society will spontaneously organize itself in a sustainable or meaningful way?”


“And the odds of this are as likely as getting dealt a losing poker hand- likely to occur more often than not?” she asked.

“Yeah,” he said, “the only precondition is that the individual parts all impact each other’s functioning.”

How math talks? In statements.

Euclid was the dude who gave us (Euclidean) geometry.

He included the postulate below.
Given any straight line and a point not on it, there “exists one and only one straight line which passes” through that point and never never intersects the first line, no matter how far they are extended.

Well, this was later replaced with the assumption that more than one parallel can be drawn to a given line through a given point. One could also make the assumption no parallels can be drawn thusly. This led to a new type of geometry.

It was after this shift in thought that mathematics was recognized to be much more abstract than traditionally supposed:

  1. Because math statements can be construed in principle to be about anything, rather than some inherently circumscribed set of objects or traits of objects.
  2. Because the validity of math statements is grounded in the structure of statements rather than in the nature of a particular subject matter.
  3. Because any special meaning that may be associated with the terms in the postulates plays no essential role in deriving the theorems.

*Clumsily articulated from readings by Douglas Hofstadter as well as Roger Penrose

Watch “Iggy Pop – The Passenger” on YouTube

Dont own rights, but iggy owns rights to US punk verbe.

This has been reincarnated, to my limited experience, twice ( ala Michael Hutchence < of INXS, RIP > and the miraculous Deftones and MJK).

Listen to this track on great headphones and hear so much additional quintessence.

Casey Adams shared an answer on Quora with you

Why does this Harvard mathematician say that science is built upon the axiom “0 exists”? by Joshua Engel https://www.quora.com/Why-does-this-Harvard-mathematician-say-that-science-is-built-upon-the-axiom-0-exists/answer/Joshua-Engel?ch=99&share=e5b9759c&srid=CWTwk

I do the words and let others do the math, generally speaking.

So , I appreciate those that can communicate numbers into words.

Words should still not be considered second to numbers.

It’s not a competition, to say the absolute least.

You do the Math

Because I only know Words; and

Only know numbers through words.

The Math and numbers may precede Word and words.

I do not recall which nor even whom could knowingly say either way.

What You call approximation (is still assumptive);

we in words call assumption (often purports as axiomatic);

those in logic call axiomatic (remains approximative).

To depower the danger of improper axioms and assumption:

Explicitly say It outloud in and with thoughtful dispassion,

then wait to feel any feedback of Its resonance with those able to hear.

Assumption then becomes mere assertion

-a simple contention made available for public consumption and comment.