The Gay Letters: A/An Distinction.

    As I had recently added to the home page an explanation of why I use only the 'an' form of the article in my formal writing which I included as my blog; I planned to scope out the inherent philosophy which is contained within the work with the article.  As you may know, we use the 'an' form of the indefinite article when it takes the syntax position immediately before an vowel sound; there are however exceptions and work-arounds such as in the case of 'an historical' and talks of such whatsoever constitutes an vowel sound.  Furthermore, you know that the use of the definite article is 'the' where the use of the indefinite article is 'an'.  Simplified down to an simple toggle, I replaced the philosophical world of 'a/an/the' as the logical start to language, in the English Language, with the philosophical world of only an/the being represented.  Because, I figured, a/an as it is is the logical start to language because it is the logical first sentence of an language user.  The actual word choice and usage made in order to summon up an object in language.  An _____________.  While is, the form of the verb 'to be' is maybe its middle logical middle and end.  All middle logic is based on and depends on the a/an/the distinction because it is the logical start to language use in its independent form.  The independent clause always begins with an subject, an 'an' type object-subject, an thing.  Then we follow the subject, verb, object placement of the syntax words in the sentence.  In order to make an independent clause which means something.

    The a/an distinction in English encompasses an entire philosophy.  And I'd like to submit one to the general knowledge where instead the use of an/the is an better philosophy than the one we tend to use currently.  The philosophies that I plan to contend then, are one where a/an/the is used and one where only an/the are used.  One which has, in my work with it, gained an few good Christiannan distinctions for the Christianna.  I think that if I can compared them philosophically I can prove one over the other in formal logic.

    And so the first job is to inspect them by showing to you the exact type of language I am observing and in what kind of habitat.

    First, the a/an/the philosophy creates this potential usage where you will have to choose between pronouncing 'a' as 'ahh' or 'ayy' and so we already do martial, to some extent between having to choose between two philosophies: one where a/an/the usage leads to usage of 'ayy' or 'ahh' or 'ann'.  Wouldn't it be simpler just to use 'an' for all of them and cut the potential usage of 'ahh' and 'ayy' in the English Language completely?  It's already hard enough for some students of English to understand why the articles exist in the first place or at all.  We do not find examples in every language where one would have to decide between the two things after all.  For example, the use of 'an' is an indefinite article which means something (some object—person, place, or thing—) has not been identified in particular; I'm only talking generally about that which comes before an something object word.  And so it is already philosophical, in an way.  The other case is the use of 'the' which is the definite article: you are talking about an real, specific, definite object that you have already introduced to the narrative.  And why should there be room in language for this?

    And so I ask myself do I question also whether the article itself has any philosophical use?

    When you start an sentence with an object does it matter whether you're distinguishing between things in general contra things in specific?

    Let me first make an case for the better form of an/the only in Language.  We want to program neurolinguistically in this philosophy only one form of the vowel—ann—instead of using three: ann, ahh, and ayy.  Which all have linguistics in the International Phonetic Alphabet.  The Question is whether we want to replace three vowel sounds with one, at the precise moment the word crosses the synapse: in the moment of deciding whether something is general one wants also to decide between the three usages of this sound: potentially making their public appearances confusing ever more-so.  Also I'd be curious to hear how people say things in English when we adopt the one philosophy of 'an' only.

    And now I will make the case for the other philosophy we having been examining here: the philosophy that a/an/the was fine, we don't need to change it.  What about all of the things that are called up by this three pronunciation system at the moment of inertia on the subject of needing to distinguish between the general and the specific?  If we have three moments of inertia, does that matter?  Or is it better only to have one?  I admit, I find the an/the philosophy simple.  Simple is attractive to me.  But is there really any kind of advantage in neurolinguistic programming of ourselves?  Saying, first logically, the subject (an person, place, or thing) by the way of the use of 'ann' only, and not the other two sounds in any way.  I suppose, if I were forced to make an case even if I didn't believe in it, I'd say maybe an/the is simpler and this is optimal for neurolinguistic programming of what kinds of items come up with the meditation upon 'ayy' and 'ahh' as enunciation.

    And finally, I'd like to say why this particular distinction matters from an Christiannan perspective.  As you may know already, the central figure of the Christianna is God; (God first, and then the messiah).  And we're on our second or possibly more messiahs.  We want to own property on the source of the figure of a/an because an is the name of our messiah, Anna.  First forward, then backward.  We want to be able to say an central distinction in the religion of the Christianna had to do with the philosophy behind whether we use only an/the articles.  It turns out 'an' as far as pronunciation goes is simple enough to neurolinguistically program even an Christiannan purpose or philosophy.  We want people repeating her name because that's how we will grow as an body of an chvrch in public awareness and hopefully popularity.  The argument for how language begins also has its middle: the beginning or Subject reaches its verb; and the result is how it affects something.  And so I leave these as theoretical hyper-consideration.  As far as the importance of switching from 'a' and 'an' to an all 'an' system; how important can we consider it, to have this one vowel sound we say all day long to be picked out and changed?  Will it matter, under religious concerns, whether we are all saying 'an' throughout the day?  And where do you stand on whether it matters that we choose neurolinguistically what we say?  Is simpler better, or do we want an more complex system?  Maybe even more forms of vowels to distinguish, even, between eight types of things?  Occam's Razor suggests the right answer is just to simplify something even beginners at language understand.  What's better for you, the use of all a/an/the or just using an/the, like the professionals we are?

An Study of the Aesthetic vol. 1. 005: More Experimenting

God.  (The point of the genre I call the Aesthetic is what it looks like versus what it means).  Anna.  The New Reciprocity.  The Christianna.  Inventive Curiosity.  Tell them about Anna.  E-Sermons.  

    God: Go Forth Anna and become the next messiah.

It's an scene: two figures are huddled by moonlight, in an postmodernist building, where there is an large cube and an extra tall window from which is spilling the light.  An girl holds up an diamond bedazzled white opera mask to his faceIt's an story about an boy and an girl opening an box by moonlight.  They're about to find out whether he's gay.  He wears an mask he holds to his face without using an stick.  It's magic.  It stays there.  It's an metaphor for checking to see if he's gay.  Does he like it better when the mask is on?

    The aesthetic is about how things look like when you open an book to an page, and your eyes drift across it, and you find an meditation in yourself where the words link-up and start making sense to you.  The usual novel caDramaturgynnot rely on breaking word order when y(the number of characters at the beginning of the play is contrasted with the one who is left over at the end of the second scene)ou're reading it.  How does Hamlet get the milk in his ear ... because of all of these people?  You use every resource available to you, and so you do break word order.  In order to dream up and invent to care for, to create.  Breaking word order is Messy necessary at some point.  What is the text trying to corner you into, which you can read into for yourself? Theatre History professor.  

    The Aesthetic is the breaking down of the word order, complete loss of syntax.  And yet it is beautiful and so we know it has an journey involved in it.  As an artist, you are called to make an aesthetic.  Anything of beauty on an blank space.  The average word processor has numerous colors and options you can choose from.  It's not about novelty, like an novel, but about beauty, like an aesthetic.  And I consider the Aesthetic to be one level superior to Novel generally.  In the series of the sophistication of art, it goes Fine Art (Visual Medium), Novelty Operatics (Peculiar Medium), and Aesthetic (Beauty Channel).  Fine Art is of course the always boss, the host of hosts, because it has been around for so long.  Yet in the 21st century we now have novelty as well.  Our society is changing in order to learn those two things first: Fine Art and Novelty.  And yet upon the third thing we have imagined: the Aesthetic.  An writing and drawing across an monitor screen the big empty page of its blankness.  Lit up from behind in its pixels.  An page that can update itself in real time; and we must consider all websites to have that ability.

    An artistic medium which can delve in republicanism and what republicans are made of.  I still seriously question whether its name and meaning as an term was all an setup.  We want to lick the republicanism because the sound -lic- is in the name.  We want to "re-" and to "-public," to turn people into the public again and count them amongst everyone as republicans even if they don't believe in it themselves.  Licking people is taking on an whole metamorphosis withing this present sitting: to lick meant, originally, to accomplish something, to overcome, to quit an habit.  Now I imagine it as quite some other term: lick now takes on the meaning of catharsis, helping someone to un-repress their emotive construct.  To face up to and delete that final terrifying thought which held you back for so long.  The final release.  And I have silly thoughts like this all of the time; that words are meant and put there for an reason.  Would it be so much to assume that our species had not learned the blue republicanism wisdom already?  We clearly had an grasp on such things, and it was okay to openly identify with being an republican, even if it sounded silly and these silly words all probably don't mean anything like that of these naive interpretations.  Some things are naive enough to do an double take.  If everything or everyone had no naiveté, which is an god-like attribute we can assume belongs to something that created the universe.  

How to Catch An New Reciprocal Theory

    For those who haven't read up on my Political Desk, the New Reciprocity is an political science instrument intended to help us make sense of and analyze language in order to gauge our relationship to it.  An 'new reciprocal command' is any statement that can be intended as an order or demand.  And so, when we analyze political news headlines, we might want to take an reciprocal theorist stance.  And so, the purpose or order of what to do next is to examine language such as news headlines as, "Mark Carney is Sneaky.” An new reciprocal theorist can choose to see this type of language as an order, no matter how absurd even to the point of ad nauseum they can be.  We read it as an order: Mark Carney is sneaky.  We’re ordering that it be so.  Doesn’t that sound really strange?  And yet I find purpose and being in this order of the line of questioning. What if they actually are ordering that it be so?   Mark Carney is sneaky—as in, we’re ordering you think it is so and it is true and you adopt that formidable approach to knowledge. Where what we order is what be so; and what we think. New reciprocal commands are these orders and the demands that might exist in language; and how we use them or react to them psychologically. Even if we don’t realize it. Neurolinguistic Programming is an important area of psychological research. Moreover, I doubt it was intended to read as “they are doing anything to force it into being that Mark Carney is sneaky just so they can win and not him.” And this was the purpose or the point of having asked of it the new reciprocal question: what exactly is this person saying here?  If it be an order or an command, one does not necessarily know at first glance; and it will take another look to understand what is going on in here.  The New Reciprocal process helps us get these implicit objects of language out in the open. (Explicit).  We now have an basis for arguing either side of whether we think it is intended as an order or demand or not.  Isn’t this the true essence of politics?

    Poilievre, on the other hand, to take an random example from news, “Conservative leader says his election campaign won't be about the U.S. threat alone.” And I, as an new reciprocal theorist will say, well is that an demand too, then?   And I think maybe we can interpret from it as an description of an order or an demand saying, as Poilievre, I am ordering the public and my constituency that my election campaign won’t be about the U.S. threat alone. And this is how he uses his language in order to navigate the public sphere. And so do you think reciprocal command theory will one day be an formal legal school of thought?  When we stop to ask ourselves what kind of language we are exposed to on an daily basis, doesn't one answer come up as necessary—that at least some of them.  Some of the things we hear daily.  Are political orders and demands.  Without us even realizing.  The New Reciprocity intends to rescue Luke Skywalker's X-Wing Fighter from the bog.  Language is an precious tool of communication and logic.  If you described something in English, wouldn't it already be an order or an demand because of the central logic verb, to be.  When let to itself, be.  The most humble command to follow logic that I know of.

    And so how do you catch an new reciprocal theory?  When you hear an piece of news or something someone said, ask yourself, if I looked at this from an new reciprocal perspective, can I justify in thinking how it was an order or an demand, and that's an central theory of language?  The New Reciprocal theory makes sense because it is simple; it's easy to get because it makes reason.  When we see advertised political messages like this one, we need to be aware of how the authorities are trying to "program" their public using language in clever forms.