16:28 March 2, 2013

re http://k0s.org/blog/20130302152731

yet attempt so insidiously: to weave in this way your narrative so that one can suppose one might find it and suppose at the subtext of your myth. The shadows of the subtext at any rate."

"Then you deny it to be true."

"Since it is claimed without basis, as just a mad scrambling narrative... Yes, if you want me to be explicit. I don't need to deny it for I have seen nothing to it."

"You've read it?"

"I've read your state machine thing trying to sound like David Foster Wallace. I...liked it, I guess. Its fairly incoherent though I assume that's part of what you were going for.

"He developed fractals for IJ's structural form. Fractals. I can't even suppose to do that, and I've worked in science. Did you understand it?"

"I understood what you explained it means."

"And you deny the reciprocity principle applies, that a state machine describing another state machine cannot be freely interchanged?"

"What does it mean that they may be 'freely interchanged'? I see it as the cheapest kind of trick. You put forth a hypothesis pointing to the space of undefined terms that you conveniently claim the proof proves are undefinable."

"For the page as yet unturned, who would guess it ending blank mid-sentence on rising action? The page is yet unturned