• This page is changing constantly: do not cache : instead reload
(if you should learn to do this will your toys of knowing, you will achieve a form of liberty more valuable than any other skill)

o:0:o

“Once there was a group of children. They had wordToys.

The power of the wordToy was interesting. A speaker and a listener would find themselves connected to a strange living window, through which word toys came into one, and also by which they were understood by the others. The window was high above them, in a place that could not be seen, but was much like the Sun.

Everything alive anywhere was already touching the window, but they had found a new way of touching it that produced words. And the words connected them to themselves, their worlds, and each other in very new and complex ways.

No one child or group owned the words, they instead emitted them after touching the living window. They never had an idea that didn’t arise outside them, in the source of ideas, nor a word that arose somewhere else. There was no idea of inventing. It was instead a mutual gesture of touching. There were no experts, since any two events were always unique, even if sounds were repeated.

Usually a small or very small amount of sound was sufficient, for the speaker and the listeners to understand the content of their communion, as there were not a great vastness of words — or sources of words. It wasn‘t the word, after all that was important, but instead its source, and their connectivity with(through) it — which the word was really nothing more than an expression of. There was a single, singing source of words. But the firstWords had meaning, and they were (however they might be formed in any instance) essential transports of connectivity, unity, and magical knowing amonst the children.

Their catalog was small — indeed smaller than this, but here is an example:

star : source : light
touch (touchEye = see)
smell
one: many
near : far
us/me : others
nice : harm/hurt
food
sick
big : small
water
tree
eaterOfChildren
lifeThing

don’tKnowThing

The lexicon’s members were few enough that it was not really necessary to have a specific word for each thing, however sometimes words very similar to other instances were common. There were also many playful games that the words taught: for example, if baga was a tree, a branch that had branches might be a bagaba (an echo of the ba in baga, which is like itself, in the way a stick with branches is like a smaller tree) whereas a stick with no branches might be an agabab (a sort of inversion that is treeLike in its soundShape, but means ‘insideOut Tree’ or ‘staff’) which is a playful inversion of the tonal symmetry implied in baga. Alternately it could be a babaga (which could place the littleTree ‘ba’ in either the beginning position or the middle, and we would have a hard time discerning which had been meant, or done...)

Thus, endless games were possible, and each one of them was a unique moment of sentient connectivity between the living window (in the sky) and the children who were emitting and listening to its teachingToySounds that broughtBetterUnity. The shapes that eventually found ‘more stable’ repetition lost a portion of their power, with each time they were repeated — in a domain that modern people largely don}t believe in, or do not explore.

Each time children touched the skyToy (which sent wordLight) what they experienced and expressed was different — so most of the time the ‘actual word’ or words used — were different every time. The lexicon they were sharing and building wasn’t frozen like those common today, and where it was structured (which it was) it was not at all structured like your toys and definition-games.

Instead, the word was magically emergent from the connectivities it sentiently conjoined in source, reference and participants. Every word was different every time, although, again — since there was a kind of (recombining) underlying structure — there was also symmetry — in fact, this was what the languages were, really. Expressions of symmetry in participation, and transports of sentient unity in a new domain. Conserve the symmeetry more than the connectivity, and you begin to get what one might call ‘tokenized’ languages.

The children with the wordToys didn’t realize that they were the colonists of an entirely new plenitude of universes, locally. These were universes of inward connectivity, where the terrains are comprised of sentient assemblies...assembling themselves together...and this was a sort of dreamWorld — where what happened there, changed how children assembled and acted in their physical, emotional and social worlds. This inward gesture was resulting in new forms of outward connectivity, assembly and response. And before long it would radically reshape a living planet, according primarily to which connectivities it conserved, and which it discarded.

They were actually in the beginning of a kind of tunnel that led to the edge of an entirely new universe, and the universe was with(in) and around — above and below them. Our anscestors were animalian. They were not unintelligent, because animals themselves are not unintelligent — and scientists or certain religiots are about the last remaining people on the planet who for some reason insist otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

And they didn’t realize that the toys themselves ‘were sentiently sourced in the universal medium’ for many reasons, chiefmost amongst which was that they had never experienced an instance of the wordToy separated from its source. Whenever they used, referred to, changed, sung or made a word inwardly – the ‘wordAngel’ was completely present, guiding them to underStanding and psybiocognitive immersion in the relations and connectivities and contexts of the word.”

[mark of translation in process]

o:0:o

: home :