The way I see it, a waste is a terrible thing to mind.
After reading the OP 3 times I have definately lost the will to live. 
I’m going to go commit hara-kiri. Later!
I effectively asked a question. “Do you believe that this tension line can be demonstrated to exist?” and additionally, “Do you believe it probable that the people who are within the parameter of this tension line are not necessarily the people you imagine when you imagine who it will effect?”
I then made a comment, that I know the tension line exists, and that I know what systems and people are within the bounds of that tension line; that the person you least expect, if caught in it, would require some sort of exlanation, and that I can explain why this unexpected person was in that parameter. The last statement assumes that you agree that it’s probable that the tension line exists and that you are not necessarily knowing of what type of people and/or general systems of belief and behavior are dependant upon it for sustainence that cannot survive without it. I then went on to say, that the survival of beings within this tension line is to commit suicide and homicide, that is how they demonstrably define survival. I described a reasonable amount already, but since we’re rewinding, I’m not going much further. I jumped the gun so to speak.
The principle to establish is:
Does suicidal tension exist?
Additional topics are:
Is there a determined method of being within that suicidal tension?
Can YOU be in the suicidal tension line?
How can you tell?
Ok, the first question is, “What is suicidal tension”?
Technical jargon carried to an extreme leads one to talk to a smaller and smaller audience. I think there is effectively an audience of one for this thread.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Oy veh, now he’s got **additional **topics?
I’m still waiting for a rational **first **topic.
Wow. I think this requires an explanation for the people who are confuddled, like me.
For what it’s worth, I tutor ESL students in college level writing, and I read bizarre, idiomatic and incomprehensible writing every day. I’m perfectly willing to admit that it’s my own ignorance preventing me from understanding the OP, as it is also my own ignorance – of other languages, of other expressions, of the ability to read my students’ minds – that prevents me from understanding many of their papers, too.
So here goes. First, let’s define the terms that may not be familiar to your reader(s).
-
What is a “tension line”? What is “suicidal tension line”? I suspect that you use the term to mean the fears and inhibitions that prevent many people, like Hamlet, from killing themselves. If so, why do you use this term? Is it a technical term from a particular discipline, like psychology or linguistics?
-
What is a “linguistic token”? Is this like a word? Is it a sound, a syllable?
-
What does the phrase “to invert all linguistic tokens” mean? In what way can the meaning of words be inverted? Why should this happen if people are deemed incapable (legally, I guess, since I can’t think of any other way) of entering a contract? Just because people can’t legally enter contracts, due to below-average mental functioning, doesn’t mean those people can’t form coherent sentences. Linguistic coherence isn’t, as far as I know, the criterion for whether one is allowed or not allowed to enter a contract – the legalese on many contracts and documents should be evidence for that.
-
Why do you assume that people who live only because they’re scared to kill themselves off are not conscious or capable of entering contracts? Why assume their language refutes itself? Why claim that “their linguistic tokens are always self refuting of what they demonstrably produce” (whatever that means)?
My suggestion to you is the same as my suggestion to all of my students – remember that your reader can only read what’s on the paper or the computer screen, not what’s in your mind. I say this sincerely – it’s in your best interest to make your writing clear and understandable, not unnecessarily abstruse.
Well, I’m still a square, but I’m trying to get better.
BTW, Olanv, any comment on that link I provided? It seems to discuss a subject very similar to yours.
It’s almost as though olanv was given a dictionary, and decided to use the words in it without reading (comprehending?) their definitions…
I post, therefore I am.
Unless I’m a web-bot.
Neener neener.
Thank goodness it’s not me!!
olanv, I think you and Timecube Guy really need to sit down for a talk. Check out http://www.timecube.com/.
Better still, check out http://www.subgenius.com/websites6.htm. You’re sure to find a kindred soul on that site somewhere.
And if you’re still at a loss, try http://www.crank.net. Pay special attention to entries labelled “Illucid.”
You’ll thank me later.
BrainGlutton, I need you to promise me that you will never allow me to understand how you found that site. Really, it’s important. That the site exists and that you know about it I have not problem with. But I need you to promise that I will never learn how to look up such things.
That second site is quite interesting. If I find out, however, that this is how you found the first one, I will have to pinch you (virtually, of course ;()
Sigh.
Someone set us up the ontological bomb!
It’s affect. Not effect.
Effect is a noun.
I Like Pork!!!