Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXI
Characterizing “openness” as hypocrisy, was, as an "opening" volley, mistaken. As an "opening" volley, “openness” is best expressed as akin to flexibility,changeability, and as opposed to rigidity, inflexibility, and the various synonyms thereof, of both.
"Rigidity", "flexibility",etc.,--these are metaphoric for types, or qualities, of structures. Itwethey understands structures as static,(static understood as inflexible in time). Excluding this initial disqualifying consideration of any concept of "openness" which allows without seeming to allow any inflexibility, Itwethey will regard flexible (though inflexible in time) structure as "open." (In other words, Itwethey will consider what openness Itwethey may yet obtain from an "openness" not considered open time-wise.)
Structure can be understood as "open", Itwethey thinks, in all ways, space-wise. (Itwethey has need to pause at how easy it is to say "ways" rather than "variable." Itwethey could say: structure is conceivably flexible for any spatial variable; or, structure can be understood as "open" in all variables, space-wise; or, spatial elements of structures may move. Here, Itwethey must add pause to pause, at the sheer banality of what seemed so exciting previously. Yet it must be clear how weird it is for us to think of structures moving in space while fixed or rigid or invariant in time--Itwethey ordinarily automatically dismisses concepts of space independent of time as obsolete.) Timelessly moving every which way--this is "opennness."
"Openness" is slippery, as slippery as e'er we could wish. It's going everywhere (but not all the time--time is excluded.) Is to structure as falling on our ass is to our dignity: something we’d avoid if we could, though such as our dignity is to our various objectives, because Itwethey stakes it out: if you wish you can consider closedness a variation of openness. Should you disagree, we would all know Structure must choose: "Hey structure, what are you? Open or closed? We will embrace and advite you advance you and subvite you or even, if you bid and we wish, 'outvite' you, whatever you vote, or tote, or toe whatever line, Structure is both OPEN and CLOSED: we therefore outrule and outrole and outvole and out—“out-out” you that we may 'in-in' you, which means, in this context, we don’t care if you choose one or the other." We literally do not care. (Itwethey is not afraid to assert the royal WE (Itwethey got the consent of "it" and "they" before doing so.)
"Rigidity", "flexibility",etc.,--these are metaphoric for types, or qualities, of structures. Itwethey understands structures as static,(static understood as inflexible in time). Excluding this initial disqualifying consideration of any concept of "openness" which allows without seeming to allow any inflexibility, Itwethey will regard flexible (though inflexible in time) structure as "open." (In other words, Itwethey will consider what openness Itwethey may yet obtain from an "openness" not considered open time-wise.)
Structure can be understood as "open", Itwethey thinks, in all ways, space-wise. (Itwethey has need to pause at how easy it is to say "ways" rather than "variable." Itwethey could say: structure is conceivably flexible for any spatial variable; or, structure can be understood as "open" in all variables, space-wise; or, spatial elements of structures may move. Here, Itwethey must add pause to pause, at the sheer banality of what seemed so exciting previously. Yet it must be clear how weird it is for us to think of structures moving in space while fixed or rigid or invariant in time--Itwethey ordinarily automatically dismisses concepts of space independent of time as obsolete.) Timelessly moving every which way--this is "opennness."
"Openness" is slippery, as slippery as e'er we could wish. It's going everywhere (but not all the time--time is excluded.) Is to structure as falling on our ass is to our dignity: something we’d avoid if we could, though such as our dignity is to our various objectives, because Itwethey stakes it out: if you wish you can consider closedness a variation of openness. Should you disagree, we would all know Structure must choose: "Hey structure, what are you? Open or closed? We will embrace and advite you advance you and subvite you or even, if you bid and we wish, 'outvite' you, whatever you vote, or tote, or toe whatever line, Structure is both OPEN and CLOSED: we therefore outrule and outrole and outvole and out—“out-out” you that we may 'in-in' you, which means, in this context, we don’t care if you choose one or the other." We literally do not care. (Itwethey is not afraid to assert the royal WE (Itwethey got the consent of "it" and "they" before doing so.)
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 4:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home