For Wed Oct 15th

As the title suggest, this is for the workshop.


Na for K

What does it feel like to be lost within a narration? It's easy, just mumble out a lot of sensible words while bypassing the register of meaning so that, although it seems that something is guiding you somewhere, it's really going nowhere. It should work, at least, as proposed. Let's try it.

Axioms:

Axiom 1: Axioms are to be followed as stated, and consistent with the preposition above.

Axiom 2: Axioms are not maxims, they're postulates!

Axiom 3: Axioms are only to be introduced so long as it is relevant to the subject matter.

Axiom 4: There is to be a line of flow within the text, so that transmission is accomplished without interfering with the whole--use waves.

Axiom 6: The end is to accomplish the outlined, otherwise the system fails and proves inconsistent.

Derivation(s):

It is odd to bring to the stage elements of uncertainty and later neatly deposit them in the trash, while at the same time gather up a round of applause--that's performance.

While guided by strict rulings one is to flex its edges as to bypass it and so accomplish the unaccomplished; the trick is to prove itself consistent and within bounds: the legalization of illegality.

Axiom 5: Having broad bounds allows for narrower domains, thus expanding the meaningful area without going overboard the stated limits.

The purpose is not to intimidate, although overtly expressed continuous words, with particular extended implications coherently expressed within the system, following a legal contract format, do tend to accomplish this with mere mention and usually without intention. The format then, so continues only employing its primitive tools in search of advancement: the scientist of sticks and curves.

It's odd enough to add an element of speculation that provides its own foundation a priori, but nevertheless be an object of uncertainty within the discussion; a conflicting resolution between independent domains that are to reach a point by avoiding it, that is, by not doing what they're meant to be doing but nevertheless doing it (without really doing it). Even its own description is conflicting (if not contradictory) and yet it isn't! Paradoxes are common as they're a direct consequence of it.

But a task is set with human limits, so results are to be obtained like profit--all or out. And so far, according to measures, seems to be doing just so. The third person perspective encrypts the idea, but the trick is to sweep away the thin layer of synthetic dust purposely thrown on top of it. A maiden, shall you say, is what is to be performed here, although its natural tasks (the maiden's) seem awfully overblown or brought upon inconsistently--a fallacy. But none has been said here in that manner!

Axiom 7: Invalid by axioms 1 and 3, so it is an axiom after all.

So we see, justice is being served in a clay platter as the medium does not matter but only the abstract it carries. If a column is set to erect in a particular way, it will do so for that's how it was outlined: rules are abstracted and unbiased when acting as agents of their own right. At times it can be proved difficult, particularly when a set of codes are transmitted by smoke signals in a windy day--at least the sender saw the smoke on its trail--but the receiver is left to wonder, which creates a lag and often a miscommunication.

Weather is ruled by complex forces and for the most part, it's better off seen than predicted. It carries away its tasks without blame (this moral tyrant of impunity), unless, of course, the weather has been predicted, its rules outlined, and the functioning of the whole presented, so blame can then be assigned to that faint cry of discontent from the receiver--this is the trick, and that's where this ends: why wait for that smoke signal in the first place? It was windy, you knew that.