paradox = paralyticdoctrines

fractalcore
 a simpleton, not questioning:  1 
 
a line is a straight curve,  2 
and a 'curved' curve could  3 
be a straight line depending  4 
on the angle you see it at.  5 
 
now, flushing  6 
perspective down the drain,  7 
can you spill infeignity?  8 

written 12/15/2010
http://www.poetrycritical.net/forum/read/250709/5/
i miss you, Diana Jiganie.
{@
____
__/__
/\
/ \
fractalcore
: )
_______________________
for what it's worth:
...a theistic view has to be creationist across the board. and, the employment of an a priori [uncaused cause] is a necessity in that particular respect, albeit a logical fallacy or a deliberate assumption that 'god' is true. now, an a priori can never be disproved by default, simply because it is a rigid origin with no prior logic to support/dispute it. but, here's the thing: an a priori is a human construct and valid as it is, which is an [deliberate] assumption that it's true. ergo, one can only nitpick on its physical/actual implications after 'assuming' that it is true, and then possibly come up with generalizations that it indeed is not true based on a pure assumption, which, in turn, makes any such generalizations an assumption by extension.
even in the fields of math and physics, an arbitrary origin, as opposed to a rigid origin, is a necessity. the only seeming rigid origin in physics, by far, is TBBT of heinekenstein, although he did not and cannot ever claim it is the absolute origin of an otherwise multiversal paradigm which is the cosmos. however, even before his death, while working on his supposed theory of everything, his elegant mathematics itself told him anything or everything is possible in the cosmos  that is to say, the cosmos shows its true nature as it unfolds every single moment in the form of the [eternal] NOW, considering all logical pasts and futures  that is to say, there is no single design or pattern or template which the cosmos is based on, and neither is there an absolute cause or purpose for life/existence/nature but life/existence/nature itself. [yeah, it's a selfserving purpose and a vicious cycle, i know, hehe. not to mention, it is a huge paradox, too.]
the cosmos is a set of infinities, AKA an indeterministic whole, with deterministic subsets like closed loops or eternal cycles. let me demonstrate that by using a 2dimensional object like a circle:
a circle is a 2dimensional [curved] curve in the top view. when viewed sideways, it is a line, which is a straight curve, which is 1dimensional. along the perimeter of the circle, any point is and can be both the arbitrary and rigid origin simultaneously  that is to say, we can pick any specific, rigid point to conveniently describe, say, a negative [clockwise] or positive [counterclockwise] angle. in defining an 'arc'  and, therefore, a finite anglesize  along the circumference, we pick 2 distinct points. in this case, an arc is a line segment when viewed sideways.
now, a line, which is a straight curve, or a 'circle'  yes, folks, a line is a circle  is said to be made up of an infinite number of points extending to both sides [infinitely]. a line, in that sense, is something which folds/curves upon itself infinitely like a closed, eternal loop. the 'infinity' in the number of points comprising a line is due to the interchangeability of those points in the sense that they are but one point located in all places along the circumference simultaneously; plus, any circle can be of any size. also, a line, or circle, is a special kind of fractal by virtue of that infinite iteration and redonedancy, er redundancy. but, it's important to note that a line can never be equal to any polygon viewed sideways, although a line or circle can be a subset of any polygon, for that matter. but, polygons are made by circles intersecting, and the curving tendency or redundancy or pattern or behavior of a circle runs at the rate of  voila  π [i.e. pi].
____
__/__
/\
/ \
fractalcore
[may 12, 2011]
: )
http://tinyurl.com/smallwhirled
 16 Dec 10 
Rated 8.5 (8.5) by 2 users.
Active (2): Inactive (0): 8, 9 (define the words in this poem)
(205 more poems by this author)

Add A Comment:

Comments:
kin hue?
; ) — fractalcore
not really — unknown
possibly, so long as on another plain of raining angel food t'rays. — unknown
so you can, unreally?
; ) — fractalcore
ahuh,
it seeps through the crack in the doors of perception
it's ok with rimfire cos i make my own. but when you hear click.click
it's time to climb that tree — unknown
no apples this season; only serpents
annoyed at having to shed skin every
fleeting moment.
; ) — fractalcore
By way of the expanse of the universe, it is such. Wavelengths like gyres, through a rusty transistor.
Good to see you were following along. — O
No need to say 'curved.'
fosho. — aliar
o, and no need to say "you see it at." or at least there's gotta be a better way to say that. I think you could get away w/ just angle. DIDN'T MAMA TEACH YOU NOT TO END YOUR SENTENCE WITH A PREPOSITION...
where u at. — aliar
quoting UNKNOWN :
"schadenfreude: joy in the misery of others  it's a well known flaw, a sortof invertendo law, that those who cannot excel, feel joy when their betters fell  as a corollary, they castigate and spit, cut you up bit by bit, 'til you cannot endure their rude toxic way, so you feel you cannot stay ... there is no logic in it fer' sure and only sentimentalReality is the cure ... they've got their own language and their cliques, as they're something like hyphenatedhyenas with Orwellianspeak  they're schadenfreudefrauds claiming they're the meek ..." — unknown
thanks for quoting AlchemiA on my poem, unk.
: ) — fractalcore
gotta say, fractalcore, you are truly amazing. — 1994
I'm just going hmmm...this is very thought provoking and I love poetry that incorporates geometry, — sybarite
thank you, guys.
i've missed you.
sorry, i can't spell infinity properly.
neither can i spill it, nor feign
the ability to do so...
not ever.
: ) — fractalcore
for what it's worth:
...a theistic view has to be creationist across the board. and, the employment of an a priori [uncaused cause] is a necessity in that particular respect, albeit a logical fallacy or a deliberate assumption that 'god' is true. now, an a priori can never be disproved by default, simply because it is a rigid origin with no prior logic to support/dispute it. but, here's the thing: an a priori is a human construct and valid as it is, which is an [deliberate] assumption that it's true. ergo, one can only nitpick on its physical/actual implications after 'assuming' that it is true, and then possibly come up with generalizations that it indeed is not true based on a pure assumption, which, in turn, makes any such generalizations an assumption by extension.
even in the fields of math and physics, an arbitrary origin, as opposed to a rigid origin, is a necessity. the only seeming rigid origin in physics, by far, is TBBT of heinekenstein, although he did not and cannot ever claim it is the absolute origin of an otherwise multiversal paradigm which is the cosmos. however, even before his death, while working on his supposed theory of everything, his elegant mathematics itself told him anything or everything is possible in the cosmos  that is to say, the cosmos shows its true nature as it unfolds every single moment in the form of the [eternal] NOW, considering all logical pasts and futures  that is to say, there is no single design or pattern or template which the cosmos is based on, and neither is there an absolute cause or purpose for life/existence/nature but life/existence/nature itself. [yeah, it's a selfserving purpose and a vicious cycle, i know, hehe. not to mention, it is a huge paradox, too.]
the cosmos is a set of infinities, AKA an indeterministic whole, with deterministic subsets like closed loops or eternal cycles. let me demonstrate that by using a 2dimensional object like a circle:
a circle is a 2dimensional [curved] curve in the top view. when viewed sideways, it is a line, which is a straight curve, which is 1dimensional. along the perimeter of the circle, any point is and can be both the arbitrary and rigid origin simultaneously  that is to say, we can pick any specific, rigid point to conveniently describe, say, a negative [clockwise] or positive [counterclockwise] angle. in defining an 'arc'  and, therefore, a finite anglesize  along the circumference, we pick 2 distinct points. in this case, an arc is a line segment when viewed sideways.
now, a line, which is a straight curve, or a 'circle'  yes, folks, a line is a circle  is said to be made up of an infinite number of points extending to both sides [infinitely]. i line, in that sense, is something which folds/curves upon itself infinitely like a closed, eternal loop. the 'infinity' in the number of points comprising a line is due to the interchangeability of those points in the sense that they are but one point located in all places along the circumference simultaneously; plus, any circle can be of any size. also, a line, or circle, is a special kind of fractal by virtue of that infinite iteration and redonedancy, er redundancy. but, it's important to note that a line can never be equal to any polygon viewed sideways, although a line or circle can be a subset of any polygon, for that matter. but, polygons are made by circles intersecting.
____
__/__
/\
/ \
fractalcore
[may 12, 2011]
: ) — fractalcore
http://tinyurl.com/small whirled
:p — fractalcore
eh, just please bridge
the gap right there.
: ) — fractalcore
a* line, in that sense, is something which folds/curves upon itself infinitely...
...and the curving tendency or redundancy or pattern or behavior of a circle runs at the rate of  voila  π [i.e. pi].
: ) — fractalcore
Very interesting word play. — gs_edgeman


