For a sheet of paper marked with a $ and a ?
some five or six inches apart
Hold paper with right hand. Close left eye. Fixate $. Move paper slowly back and forth along line of vision and watch ? disappear at about twelve inches.
Self – an addenda without hope, a fashioned afterthought that models others (it predicts), subscribes: where metaphor is the hero and possible the wife,/ taking questions literally performs an ‚I‘ with loaded dice./ The paper clip – a mobius strip in one dimension – makes a Latin of machine translation and coz the face acts as a tourniquet for blood flow to the brain (try a smile in triplicate)/ we make pets of -ing and -ly, sweet nothings to the ear of ‚rithmatic./ Dimpled query – sitting on any point that could be made – fair dinkum figurative, parts positions down a mid/ (near misses, bait is what translates) of wimps, and like any prop requires objects other than itself to did./ (Fiddly stuff, taking piss out of a this.) Almost – a fib – kids itself (‚cept when it’s big) by restructuring the lexicon, a causal reference (it describes). It means both. (It’s a bit like soap.) Cyberspace uses facts as rent, it listens in on hymns, and mopes around the narrative of dope by chatting up a line at home. A loan. (Or fine.) Gives me the shits. And inside out and upside down a crab of pockets turns words to trojan horse a want with regulars, a learnt chess-without-a-queen or what-can-you-say? S’pose Jonah extends the form by whispering (a drop-the-hanky sort of before) ‚induction fucks a lot‘ and threatens an internal realism by coming on to one as one, what then? Does it verify? Or mean to refer to dubs as of-a-kind? You, expert, and don’t tell me it’s a different sort of question; been there, ‚it agrees coz it’s something else‘ sucks. If a paradox does in fact despair, it only explains fiction as some uncertain need, it don’t attitude. (Anyway, maybe it’s a medium – ‚certain‘ is a word that only happens in limericks). That it reinterprets, a la prejudice, abstract logics in a nest (in a nest of dependencies) is suitably cute. Intention makes for changes in negation (it quantifies (buys) things) by marking as incomplete those distinctions we’ve called possible, inertia come home to roost (; it would seem to be just a matter of decision which parts should correspond). Satisfied, perspective dressed to kill: actual thinks somersaults are neat – ‚I give up‘ deduces Wall Street to be a street. (Promise reflects a lack of surprise and performs a premise on itself (show off), a persuade of conclusions that even I can understand: in that consistency is closer to tragedy than logic, it too starts out right (subject). One is rather obviously a conceit, or modest state.) And if we tell what meanings do, we can tell on what they are, we can do functions (parts and combinations) as a tense of pronouns (that contexts stammer is self-evident), as a mass, a fallible nip. (Intension is the truth – it goes into a sentence twice/ (a cough of quanta goes off if’n you keep it in the shade) and all sentences are sets of possible worlds where the context set is empty, and empty coz it’s nice./ It groups. In adverbs. And adverbs come to lunch. Please is a property of prob. Expressly represents. And shoves empirical up the front. A situation-sized dob. Proof.) Pandora had an ego, Pandora had a dog. Psychology, or what you think it means, irons shirts. It is generally about. (An equivalence.) And if the dog knows that I too know where the bone is, is it a metaphor? Or just a summary? The present king of France thinks so. A fictive false (used as a setting) concept went to see and what he saw made sense: copy of particulars, ten bucks. ‚I’m sure‘ was trying to be efficient (so he explained) and got in a domestic (use) that does hi-camp. (Suits me.) Strengthening the antecedent is a favourite pastime (‚entities‘ to those who know):/ the semantics of pragmatics that jam gravity into a brick of course just ain’t on, they’re like classes – all shy signs and volunteers – none of them can throw./ A property is only a set for fairies. One unnoticed parameter was shot. It implied to death. If you call that tactics, you’ll dance with anything. If subject matter ain’t modal, is it occupied? Particles don’t add up ‚less they’re stood on: a proposition approaches function if the john has half a clue/ – aboutness ain’t on every street corner, but not coz it ain’t ‚identical‘. So what do you do?/ Describe? Remember? After all, representation requires states, subtlety is printed on every dollar bill – that addition is associative, costs, pimp. It is conditional. I mean, ‚it‘ is hardly underground. (The metaphysics of ‚watch it‘ need not apply (the motive of the inevitable was framed).)/ And the only place to go for blame/ is up. Time’s up, too. And if pretence weren’t so moody, roles could account appeals dispensable, as ex, a bias that knows what you mean. Ah, art: say ‚are‘. Next. Ideal data wipes the floor, ideal data types./ (What, words skite?/ Too fuckin right./ (Two can play at avarice, only one can win.) Whim. ‚I think‘ – as a definition of truth – is plus or minus ten percent (that is the observable universe), it is an essentially pathetic anything.) One to one (with witnesses) plays asides in positives (ghost prosodic systems) and uses disease as a way of tuning space (it localises as narrative, an ontology that eats shadows (I mean you may as well call it science)). It also hides. We please knees? Guess so.
Aboutness – the burden of similarity – intends. It depends, as do conditions, ideally, on observed adequates (a mapping of rhetorical pauses that take meaning to be a sentence (not here a description) of couldabeens) or plotted needs. It dresses non-equivalence, ignores a certain vague sincere evidence of prose and induces ‚for example‘ to be noun enough. (Speech, of course, also uses clues of consistency, a ‚the least meaning is the best meaning‘ principle of charity: thanks but no thanks.) To assume that it’s true and that it’s true of, in other words that it rhymes, is a symptom (trying to motivate meaning) of projected summary. Old-information-first held up it’s end of the conversation by saying nothing. It nominalised the postponed agent (a parasite) as actual (and therefore possible) or at least ersatz. (Possibilia deals, synodomistically, with completedness and only seems to cheat) Quasi much. Amounts. Now that’s a pathological predicate (you can tell, it confuses coherence and consistency). Or syllogism (; to the known, psychology means a theory of acquisition). See?