I have been told (irl) *where *the Singularity will occur, but for the sake of anonymity I’d rather not reveal that particular detail. I’m more interested in the consequences: Note that as a result of the de-monetization of mercenary Western culture the Singularity would bring to most of the world, money qua money becomes vastly de-prestiged, aside from merely de-valued in the sense that say global markets would notice in a hurry, though that too, of course.
Ok. But Maria Yuryevna Sharapova is uniquely positioned to capitalize on this financial “collapse”, such that she culls over $100 billion from the fallout for her personal fortune. This would still constitute a vast personal fortune, even within the context of near-global de-monetization, and a rather unique one, though still not something to the scale of the economies of powerful first-world nations (which of course won’t be what they used to be due to the global de-nationalization that will proceed from the Singularity, but for the sake of brevity let us simply note that detail without exploring it in depth at this time).
I submit that Maria Yuryevna Sharapova would be a force for wit and goodness in this eventual eventuality (the Singularity), softly wielding her hard power in a sometimes unyielding way, with empathic “touch” and “charm” such that the proles finally countenance that, until now, they neither acknowledge their inability to acknowledge their individual guilt, nor accept their personal non-existence beyond that of an effect of something much deeper and universal, which is really the keystone of an effective and cromulent Singularity to begin with.
So, for these reasons, I vote “proceed” on the question of Maria Yuryevna Sharapova, and I think you should, too.
I’m going to have to agree with Try2B Comprehensive. If one examines the submodernist paradigm of reality, one is faced with a choice: either reject neotextual cultural theory or conclude that consensus comes from the masses, but only if Lacan’s critique of cultural discourse is invalid; if that is not the case, narrativity is capable of significance. Therefore, Bataille suggests the use of modernism to challenge class divisions.
The main theme of the works of Gaiman is the absurdity, and some would say the collapse, of neocapitalist class. The primary theme of de Selby’s analysis of Foucaultist power relations is not theory, as the semantic paradigm of reality suggests, but subtheory. However, the example of modernism prevalent in Gaiman’s Death: The Time of Your Life emerges again in Death: The High Cost of Living.
To add to this sentiment: Potentiality is the healing of insight, and of us. To follow the story is to become one with it. By unveiling, we dream. Life-force requires exploration. Have you found your quest? The biosphere is calling to you via pulses. Can you hear it? It can be difficult to know where to begin.
As you live, you will enter into infinite spacetime that transcends understanding. Through feng shui, our souls are enveloped in conscious living. You will soon be guided by a power deep within yourself — a power that is pranic, primordial. We are at a crossroads of synchronicity and discontinuity. Humankind has nothing to lose. Who are we? Where on the great story will we be aligned?
Where there is ego, knowledge cannot thrive. We can no longer afford to live with dogma. Yes, it is possible to erase the things that can erase us, but not without complexity on our side.
I think the OP is saying is that one day, the whole universe is going to collapse into something the size of a tennis ball, and that an aging tennis pro is then going to win.
I suspect we’re discussing the AI singularity, in which artificial/machine intelligence becomes capable of self-improvement and replication. At which point the entirety of H. sap.–with the exception of Maria Yuryevna Sharapova–is made redundant.
As opposed to a gravitational singularity, such as a black hole, in which the normal rules of spacetime physics no longer apply. Like, possibly, in the vicinity of Maria Yuryevna Sharapova.
.
The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonner-
ronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthur-
nuk!) of a once wallstrait oldparr is retaled early in bed and later
on life down through all christian minstrelsy. The great fall of the
offwall entailed at such short notice the pftjschute of Finnegan,
erse solid man, that the humptyhillhead of humself prumptly sends
an unquiring one well to the west in quest of his tumptytumtoes:
and their upturnpikepointandplace is at the knock out in the park
where oranges have been laid to rust upon the green since dev-
linsfirst loved livvy.
Well, I refute that by :Nonsense you look like a girl you are lots younger than Candace color in your cheeks like a girl A face reproachful tearful an odor of camphor and of tears a voice weeping steadily and softly beyond the twilit door the twilight-colored smell of honey suckle. Bringing empty trunks down the attic stairs they sounded like coffins.
As a guy who studied American Lit as an undergrad and took his handle from a Faulkner character, I’m embarrassed to admit I had to Google that to learn where it came from. :smack:
Right, only a yet more current approach to challenging class divisions is closer to an après-garde post-modernist approach. I mean, we got smart phones now, know what I mean?
As for choices re: neotextual cultural theory, 21st century logic permits “quantum binary” (call it trinary!), such that, instead of a given binary option having two answers: 0 or 1, we also have the option of both, cite. Viewed through this lens, we can see at once why these questions seemed like such conundrums to thinkers in the previous century (even though it was there all along!) and how trivial such considerations will ultimately turn out to be to Maria Yurevna Sharapova should this Petition succeed in achieving ratification.
