i am in fuller's shadow..

essay enclosed from a book i'm writing. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
in writing this book - i discovered independently, what fuller had discovered in 'critical path' over a matter of years, and published on the cusp of the carter/reagan administrations. i reread my copy of critical path. yup, fuller was right. the critical path occurred.

for the most part, sadly. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
findings being - laws, economic laws, had pulled us away from ecological stability . . though my findings are much more raw and primal in nature, an example being that i was studying decaying trends and styles - most notably: tim allen movies, bad architecture, candy, graffiti, new wave, punk rock, big momma's house - basically, that which is subversive, yet somehow publicly accepted. ephemera.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .
studying the consumerist trends, essentially - i discovered the loopholes of capitalism and socialism, often in the most mundane circumstances . . often playing off each other. . . the purpose of the mundane is to make these findings more useful, somewhat poetic, so as to find anticipatory logic in the very pull away from anticipation - this is key - in contradistinction, and complimentary to fuller's "holistic" approach.

this pull is key in sustaining ecology, as well as the critical path. this pull is a part of what is called "precession. . " which is to say, decay serves a purpose, especially in countries with an infrastructure. . . .

i have used the word ecology loosely in this book, for an almost anthropological purpose, to include humans with regards to the very things that ecology negates: materialism. .

anyways, the excerpt is mostly for comedy . . a bit overly social . . but it addresses things in different ways. . .

the title hasn't been "made up" yet. . this particular essay is in the form of poetry, it was put into a language translator thru various languages, and spit out, in incomprehensible spurts . .
. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . ..v/. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
I cannot [eilikrina] understand because the persons make what they make, what it may be, this thing. Anyways, the policy of dissemination, that which exists elsewhere, this thing, concern a lot the way that we speak in one other, or talk to one another, if they are our exceeded opinions with regard to the religion, or a myriad of other things, the basic action of politeness they pass [aparatirites], [perifronimenos], and in order to we continue the further privilege weither, we find the babies making the babies [who make]. Novel, ty. And the nature of prosperity becomes itself, a nature. . . . this nature of prosperity, since I have brought above elsewhere is idealist first, and a subject of speculation elsewhere, that is, it says this is a collective hope .. marxism is merely superficial to this end, and that is one of the beginnings of foundation of modern political dissemination, and in the western thought, something consented, by tone within universities, professional avenues things, tv or public radio, is of a collective tone of agreement, or promise. this very promise is the critical path. Within most societies, you do not have one radio station calling an apple a chicken, while another more prominent radio station calling an apple is a theory. Yet, one may say, there is a collective justified consent that says an apple is a chicken. Just the same, It is enough to say, there is a tone of agreement in most media related outlets as to what is discussed which is called a courtesy, the likes and dislikes. .
. . . . . . . . . .. . . ..
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" – Ludwig Wittgenstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .

If the nature of babies is crude, and the American culture does not like this, それは高い中学校の二次1つのの、流出の未成年者の反映された1の1の暴動買収する, so our knowledge is waylaid in favor of sports, as Gilles delueze had shown, was drawn for pipe of feeding, so that we say, we cannot break exempted from the familial structure since we see him. [I will explain]

in ourselves, 1. preposition dans; whatever it is.

2. adverb (at home, in the building etc) là; (arrived: train) arrivé; (in its position) dedans; in here ici; when the diskette is in quand la disquette est à l’intérieur

3. adjective (fashionable, popular) à la mode

however [perifronoyme] those that cannot break exempted from the familial structure, as mentally the sick, in reality, because homelessnesses are as sports, and the poor concern in this the nation are waylaid in favour of the logic of babies [pacifier], are cuz we cannot see in us that [dipote] other than what is familial than within the family. This is what I was about to explain: What was orally spoken, the oral tradition as authority, was given to media, was given to sports, with films, often in the narrative form which had been abandoned in books.

The Carlos Williams of William had moved so much roundly to puritan cruelty in “in the American grain”. I would move to their wandering family. I cannot see how to begin a family makes the will of a god. Such subjects do not call any. . . [soapbox] just the same one, the problem with poverty is also the nature in prosperity, it is true, as the Carlos Williams of Williams of poèt most suitably specified, and that I tested myself - the course of an education of the young person is very ambient sensitive - one requires “for a physical intelligence” if to surmount - if a young person believes that a certain policy, such as joining the soldiers or to go to the university or at the commercial school will profit them experientially, I think that you will find > more than surer are they this course is in [any] way or of other deeply of much more advantage than any other policy – a confusion ensues - if as a soldier, a presumptuous artist, a sociologist, almost any “field” towards what is sure, it could be a process of gentrification of ignorance, or what is self-education, to build yourself up from the confusion of those first years. But he [Williams] had stated, these formidable years are often confused by an education, which separates us from ourselves, to paraphrase: “separates from contact with that which is around us” . . . which recedes us, into our buildings, our homes, a tv, a picture, yahoo personals, myspace, white walls. . . honestly, it is the backtrack that is more philosophical than the humanization of knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .
So slight a suggestion, as “in the body, nothing is known.” And the recovery of those years, if one is to survive,
In a society such as this, and an education such as this, the testing, the knowing, the act of “being right” is held to potential, a flame and such . un boiteux providentiel à une réalité telle que le succès. What am I saying? Well, there is not a money making rule that can make for the experience of self-education. In a society, such as the united states, it is often the odd perception to the rule that is actually doing studying of your own.
more young people are very impressionable, that coupled to what tangentially could be noticed as “behavior human” - it is of sufficiency of man as for his process of individual-discovery which returns it generally vulnerable in kind of a world of which - which little the remark is made owing to the fact that this vulnerability is made inevitable, and to embrace this vulnerability, as a true soldier must in times of battle-time, is the true gasoline of education and of the individual-discovery… as for arrogance, ignorance, providence, reality, the cold reality of the life is not at all “survival of most suitable”, most of the time because the results are not at all important if you are not adapted at all to survive, that humanity is obviously not [may it be] - the range of the unquestionable evolution on earth does not have absolutely nonbearing on himself [or whatever], he must learn this, this way or that, a turning in its own madness, often by the majority of the unhappy circumstances - and the fact that the man must collectively act in order to survive, shows that one has no clue how to do so, or that one should not know how to survive – how strange to tell one this fact, this inverse proper, that may dispel Marxism, but to a nosey so and so only gives one a follyism, which one may agree. . . .
it is something much more close to why the man survived of the whole, by a strange providence of just moseying - thus, trust us with the old people. . . if I were to trust this act, I would find myself, but when I look at a painting of gogh of van, of value, or probably a poetry which I did not think of, such as leading by a food window of fast preparation or to go to the university to become in a way or of other “learned” – I find myself back at “in ourselves” or a cool divide, which is not the same thing that a work obtains, thus confusion. . . .
a cup of sugar, some cream, which is divided from the whole or some other, it is either economic or it is not. . .. as one has stated, that such distinctions will go the way of the buffalo, or the vagina – you may say, how is that possible? It is either a cup of sugar, or it is not. .
if there be great dichotomy tween the clean and the poor, the well groomed well bred imbecile with no concerns, and the one whom cannot even barely survive, such as this, it is the cup of sugar, it is the path of least concern that is the path of least resistance, handed down, one must say “I know the nature of things” I cannot blame someone for this, but I must live apart from this. .

so i guess, one should not speak of sugar. .