originary difficulty

- Ray

As a discourse surrounding structuralism is context, I read the
following with an eye to structure and descry a fallow interprent of
your text, specifically within following excerpt:

> him first and then go on the to the secondaries with a knowledge
> of the origins.

A most derogatory and macho masochistic derivation not unknown in
western, but more prominent in most Asian and Occidental cultures
might be defined with the the into the on secon-al glance, or, while
ruminating upon your intentions. What knowledge relevant to being
aware of the origins is implied in your train of thought, and how does
such involve a physical awareness imparting what manner of greater
consciousness. Further, how might such permanently despoil any form
which has lasting qualities in any manner, respective of Truth?

If one builds on a foundation embedded with fallacy, encouragement of
positive forethought in structured logic does not stand a ghost of a
chance in withstanding dynamic states of reasonable probabilistic
assessments. That is, as many paths and modalities are withstood,
fallacious groundings are certain to undermine best made plans. If a
strive toward permenance is to be undertaken, one-sidedness and
physicality must be recognized within broader scope, such as that of
geological time and the progression of psyche therein unfolded.
Consider great flowers and what for winds are used to convey across
such bounds in this biosphere. What do such flowers know of their
conveyance? In greater consciousness are such rounds bullets of times
tied to golden thought, or clearer expressions of communal basis?

Mike Koopman internet: koopman@xxxxxxx phone: +1-814-269-2637
Partial thread listing: