ShrillQuill

To preface, I would like to say that l am a person who has lived for a very specfic amount of time. Naturally such amount of time changes each time that amount of time changes ergo it is different than when I began that sentence. I was also born at a very specific time and have not yet died, but can predict given a reasonable evidence of the general population that such will happen at a very specific time, however, given that there exists a less than reasonable number, that number being one less than all total aspects, of constants for such experiment, it might be considered obstruse to suggest that i will in fact die at a very specific time and since I have not yet died it is therefore impossible to come to the conclusion that I will die. Most likely I am immortal. Anyway I believe it is time for the actual introduction part of the introduction now, although the idea of there being a titular part of something does not make a lot of sense, as such thing misleads you then to believe that such part is the only contents of the thing. Of course in the interest of efficiency this is considered a reasonable tradeoff, but if such an alien species exists that can travel through time, let us call them Tralfamadorians, do you think they would decide to refer to such things by a list of all parts therein. If not, would you think there are an infinite or at least an incomprehensible number of parts to any one thing. This might be the case but such comes to a philosophical question of how much something may be divided into. If such thing is physical then, although an atomic limit is perhaps a reasonable compromise to the Tralfamadorians, there would be questionability towards where exactly a limit would be set. Even more problematically, if a thing named for its titular part is purely cerebral, or in a higher plane of existance than a physical description can describe, there lies a problem that each idea comes from another idea and therefore there is no known way to divide the thing into a finite number of parts, or infinite for that matter. I suppose that means that even with control over time one would describe any thing by its titular part, but what if something that is described by its titular part is a part which ascribes something it makes up its own title. This of course would not be the case for everything, however, given the infinite number of things, there must be a matryoshka needle in the haystack of existence. How confusing would that be. What if this is actually not the case as the smallest part of something can not be a part of a part of something, or that there can not be a part of a part of something. This introduction for example, what smaller thing makes up the introduction part of the introduction. Well of course, sentences and therein words and therein letters and therein, depending on the method chosen to express one’s introduction, pixels (in this example). None of these names share the name of their predecessor. Speaking of such introduction, I think I have prefaced enough and that I should introduce myself. Although, isn’t it strange that we say “speaking of” when writing. That’s not to say, of course, that speaking of is purely written and ergo never spoken, however should there not be a separate term referring specifically to a written form of communication. It’s of course a spoken tradition that inevitably was transferred to the page in the same careless manner that many phrases, especially in the English language, although certainly found in as many languages as I can count, twelve, chose to somersalt into such language. Say, however, in an Vonnegut-esque disaster, that all human beings lost the ability to speak, and to transfer that ability to their offspring. Would “speaking of” trigger some kind of post traumatic stress disorder and thereby be iradicated, or would “speaking of” perhaps be completely ignored and not change at all, or, finally, would “speaking of” by replaced by a different term that is not problematic. This third option seems a rendition of the modern predicament described, that is to say that speaking of would not be replaced, it would be too much effort, however perhaps that depends on the population size. If, for example, rather than eight billion, the population of earth was reduced by some disaster to twenty, or whatever the number that comes immediately after twelve is, would it be suddenly very possible to change such a phrase quickly and easily. Upon further thought one may realize this of course depends on how close together the twelve plus one people live, and on even further thought one may realize themself an idiot as an event that would iridicate most of the earth’s population most likely would leave the survivors in a single very specific location. At this point however, this situation has no application to any reasonable event, reasonability being of course determined by an experimental interperetation of history. I think, however, I have talked, written too much about that and it is time, perhaps, for the actual introduction. Of course, it might not be possible to write too much about anything. Is it possible to rob a thing of all of it’s knowledge or is there always a reason to continue spreading information about it? This, of course, leads to a the idea that a thing has been expanded upon so much that every aspect of it has been discovered, which in turn ties into the idea that everything is intertwined, and therefore every thing is something you can explain in a seemingly unrelated field as, in fact, such field is related and therefore to have wrote too much about any one thing would mean to have wrote every single little thing known and not yet known and those we shall never know. A description of every atom ever observed, for example. The amount of time something like that would take is unimaginable to the point of infinity thereby proving it impossible to write to much about anything. The phrase is truly meant as a way of expressing that one might be exhausted of the talk about one subject, however is such a thing, the exhausting of one’s mind, not extraordinarily subjective? This could be problematic as if someone were to speak this phrase among a group of people all other’s in the group might continue to be interested. Regardless, it’s probably time to get to the introduction now, although do you think that the aforementioned Tralfamadorians would believe anything about it being a time to do something. They would either know or not care what happens at any specific time, would they not? Would they therefore have no use of a phrase “it’s about time”? On a similar note, out of curiosity, do you think people should do things out of curiosity; is curiosity a positive trait of humans. Scientifically, given the theory of natural selection it must be a positive trait however we may just fall into some hole unable to see a version of humankind with more optimal performance that has no curiosity. This is probably not the case because curiosity is a trait exhibited across the entirity of Animalia. Regardless of all of this it is finally human-time, as I have decided, as I am the one writing this, to begin and eventually end the introduction part of this introduction.



Hi, I’m ShrillQuill.

1 Like

I’ve read it all:). Nice introduction by the way. I quite like this way you used the word rob to describe a philosophical way as the society knows this word being use rather in manners such as “Oh no! James, a 23 year old guy from Brooklyn, New York is robbing the one bank I happen to be in at the moment. However I must not fear him as I a robbing this place too!” (Yes I spoiled his name…). But rather you used the word to describe the way today’s society lives with phrases coming and going every day. Some phrases we used a few years ago are never to be used ever again. And the all mighty Gods of the language- be it German or English - have decided to just let it be this way? No we shall hear the call to unite against those who seem to rule the world, the language we speak and read. Alone we might not be strong enough, but togheter I am sure we can get them to fail in there plan for everyone to use English. Different languages are different, but maybe not for long anymore. In German as an example we used the word “raub” (rob) in many different occasions whilst now we only use it to describe the action of someone,well, robbing a bank. In other words and manners I shall day that I like your introduction. With best regards, JoBe