Language is the mitochondrion of Being

Shall I project a world? ¹

Charles Taylor's tetralogy ²  compendiously documents two of Heidegger's central findings:—Dasein is the self-interpreting, self-articulating entity; ³  humankind is world-building. ⁴     In a review of Cosmic Connections  Stephen Mulhall summarizes the thesis of The Language Animal  as “human beings are self-interpreting animals . . . the identity of any human being is determined by their interpretation of that identity, which is itself bound up with their interpretation of the objects and situations they encounter.” ⁵  

The Language Animal is Taylor's Φυσικά, his treatise on the specifically human mode of change—self-interpretation/self-articulation; a work propaedeutic to his three focused studies of (Western) world-building. ⁶   In TLA  Taylor analyzes the two varieties of semantic logic, Hobbes-Locke-Condillac and Hamann-Herder-Humboldt.  Such are the two arms of Taylor's Master Merism. HLC is Aufklärungsartig, HHH is Romantic. ⁷    HLC is normative,⁸  HHH anarchic.  HLC is instrumentalist, HHH disclosive. ⁹  Given the Master Merism, I'm inclined to say that HHH is fat and HLC is lean; ¹⁰  that HLC is der Ich, HHH das Unbewusste ; HLC  is Apollo, HHH is Dionysus; HLC is Torah, HHH is Gospel.  Furthermore that HHH is higher-dimensional than HLC, has many degrees of freedom, is deconstrained in its inventivity.   Die Sprache als  jene dunkle, treibende, unersättlich sich selbst begehrende Macht. ¹¹   Yet Taylor insists on speaking of the power of language under its HHH aspect as ‘constitutive;' whereas ‘dynamic' or ‘generative' or ‘metabolic' strike me as often nearer the mark.  ‘ Nature loveth gerundives' type of thing.

HLC is designative, HHH is regestaltive.  Scientific and technical and everyday neologizing proceed because “independently existing phenomena come to our notice and are named.” ¹²

“But this is not the only scenario for the creation of new terms.  There are cases where we feel a sense that there's something new to be said.  This may be at first inchoate; we are groping for something, we know not quite what.  And then we coin the new expression which resolves this tension.  We have found the ‘right' word.  Then this can be taken up by others, sometimes immediately, and even without noticing the neologism, sometimes after consideration.  They also see this as fitting, appropriate, the ‘right' word; it becomes part of the language.” ¹³  

The moments of this right-wording process map onto those of insight, as enumerated by Lonergan:

“What we have to grasp is that insight (1) comes as a release to the tension of inquiry, (2) comes suddenly and unexpectedly, (3) is a function not of outer circumstances but of inner conditions, (4) pivots between the concrete and the abstract, and (5) passes into the habitual texture of one's mind.” ¹⁴

Yet insights are, in Lonergan's telling, “a dime a dozen.” ¹⁵   Likewise Taylorian right-word findings are two-for-a-nickel.  Most insights and right-wordings are pocket-change magnitudes of the phenomenon that Taylor rightwords as ‘regestalting.'   On the other hand serious moolah may come by way of an “existential insight,” “through meeting, or hearing about, some paradigmatic figure (the Buddha, St. Francis), or by reading a book about ethics or the meaning of life, or (more often) through reading a novel or seeing a film.”  The impact of such insight

“can be described as a regestalting of our world and its possibilities, which opens a new (to us) way of being.  So we can speak here of a regestalting constitution.  We can sometimes win through to this regestalting on our own, where under the pressure of some quandary, or difficult decision, we come to see our possibilities in a new light (and this may then retrospectively connect up with something we read or encountered earlier, which is now itself reassessed in the light of our new insight [ cf. Freud's Nachträglichkeit]).   In whatever way, regestalting offers us new terms or models to understand our lives.” ¹⁶          

We can also speak here of the shape of a distribution, in that the force of the impact of regestalting is inversely proportional to its frequency—the bigger the fewer.  The bulk of the distribution resides in the dime-a-dozen/two-for-a-nickel leftward bulb of a right-skew plot (frequency on the y-axis, force on the x), with the rare, high-impact existential events lying far out in the long right tail.  A Gutenberg-Richter-ish model of regestalting.  We might even caption the segment of the x-axis beneath the bulb with Hamann's saying, Reden ist übersetzen; and the segment under the right tail with the Torso's words to Rilke: Du musst dein Leben ändern. ¹⁷  

And this model scales up from populations of regestalts within individuals to populations of regestalts within ever broader swaths of shared human experience, thereby displaying the self-similar texture of Verwandlungsgeschichte.  Or it would if we could finesse the measurement problem.  Anyhow this model is a provisional heuristic more or less formally indicating—handwaving in the general direction of—what we sense as the Vagaries of Verstehen.

With phrases such as Aristotle's ‘animal possessing language,' Taylor says,

“we are trying to answer questions like: ‘what is human nature?'  This is often conceived on analogy to other animals; something one can describe in terms of instincts and recurring behavior patterns.  But the emergence of language seems to have introduced much greater flexibility, a capacity to change, even to transform ourselves, which has no parallel among other animals.” ¹⁸  

But introduction of greater flexibility, of capacity to change and even to metamorphose is the  recurring pattern of the history of life on Earth.   Sprachesein  is the distal segment of life's grand-scale serial homology:—‘again, but different.'  

Gould informs us that Richard ‘Dinosaur' Owen defined serial homology as “the iteration of an archetypal form within  the same organism in a set of repeated parts, perhaps each specialized for a particular function, but still bearing signs of the common architectural plan—as in the biramous appendages of arthropods, whether specialized as antennae, mouth parts, walking legs or genital claspers; and in the arms and legs of tetrapods.” ¹⁹

In a chapter titled ‘The Figuring Dimension of Language' Taylor writes that “the creative-inventive side of language”—which he also calls the Cratylist  dimension—“involves figuring A through B;” that is, figuration posits “a relation between whole domains, whereby one is structured though a template derived from another.” ²⁰   And structural templates, “where the structure of domain B is used to make sense of domain A in some systematic fashion . . . can combine to form cognitive models, scenarios, narratives, semantic frames that give their shape to more ‘abstract' domains of cultural and social interactions, or even to scientific or mathematical theories.” ²¹  Now insofar as it is a kind of conservation law, serial homology is a template of figura futurorum.   Consider the Mad Rabbi's claim that he comes not to liquidate (solvere) the Judaic Welt  (life via the Law and the Prophets), but to sate it (adimplere): Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας: οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι. Matt. 5:17.  Typological exegetes see in this kerygma a serial homology (not their phrase), a Plan-conserving progression through Old Testament to New. The third and final segment of the divine series will be the consummation of the undertakings of the first two.  As Auerbach expounds it, “the confrontation of the two poles, figure and fulfillment, is sometimes replaced by a development in three stages: the Law or history of the Jews as a prophetic figura for the appearance of Christ; the incarnation as fulfillment of this figura and at the same time as a new promise of the end of the world and the Last Judgment; and finally, the future occurrence of these events as ultimate fulfillment.” ²²   Heilsgeschichte as a three-segment serial homolog, like the forelimb of a mantis.

Auerbach esteems figura as “the creative, formative principle, change amid the enduring essence, the shades of meaning between copy and archetype.” For figural interpretation, he explains, “establishes a connection between two events or persons, the first of which signifies not only itself but also the second, while the second encompasses or fulfills the first.”  Importantly for present purposes, the attitude embodied in the figural interpretation (‘figuring A through B') “became one of the essential elements of the Christian picture of reality, history, and the concrete world in general.” ²³

A Secular Age recounts how, over the course of five centuries, the Christian picture of reality was eclipsed by the modern through a complex process of disenchantment.  In that account   Taylor analyzes the various aspects of the disenchanting-process, how through building the modern world   the enchanted one was lost.  Among what remains (is conserved) of that lost world is the need/desire for enchantment, for ‘cosmic connection.' ²⁴   Cosmic Connections recounts the ways certain of the Romantic and post-Romantic poets have fashioned enchantment in new versions; Percy Shelley's ‘subtler languages' (Wallace Stevens's ‘ghostlier demarcations' ²⁵ ); ‘again but different.'  

Taylor begins by looking at the ways

“that the poetic tradition has diversified.  The starting point of the ‘poetic tradition,' as I am trying to expound it, is the generation of the 1790s in Germany.  What was elaborated there was the basic idea of two kinds of language, or uses of language: a dead, instrumental one, and a living, disclosive, epiphanic one.  This starts off in close symbiosis with a unified theory, englobing philosophy and poetics, that was worked out, and in broad lines more or less accepted, by this generation, which included Hölderlin, Novalis, the Schlegels, Schiller, Schelling, and the young Hegel: both Nature and human beings are in development; both these developments are linked—our destiny is to grasp and give expression to the development of Nature, and indeed, this grasp completes that development by bringing it to consciousness.” ²⁶

One (post-Romantic) way to grasp and give expression to the development of living Nature is to look again at Leonard Eisenberg's Tree of Life:

https://evogeneao.s3.amazonaws.com/images/tree_of_life/tree-of-life_2000.png   By traversing all the way to the right of the diagram we find the twig ‘Human.'  Now imagine magnifying that twig to the same size as the original diagram.  What structure would we see?  The shape of the original diagram again:—an emergence ramifying densely outward in time.  Only now the branches and twigs are Welten, ways of being. ²⁷  Our destiny—the dynamic of our segment in the serio-fractal homology that is life—is to generate variety in worlds, to explore and thereby create the possibility space of Bedeutsamkeit.  At least until that dynamic shall have destroyed the conditions of its possibility (Lewontin), und die klugen Thiere mussten sterben  (Nietzsche), “as myriads have gone extinct” (Darwin). ²⁸   Before there was any Dasein, as Heidegger puts it, “there was no truth; nor will there be any after Dasein is no more.” ²⁹

The truth of interest in Cosmic Connections is revealed in consciousness of the Plan.   Views from antiquity through the Enlightenment “took the universe as manifestation of an Idea, plan, or purpose. . . . All this the Romantics took over. . . . The difference comes in how they conceived our access to this order of signs.” ³⁰

“Human language, and thus artistic creation, is something very different from the language in things—that is, the universe as a manifestation of the Plan.  But this language/creation can to some extent bridge the gap, can offer approximations of what the universe reveals.  That is the best we can do.  But it is crucial. . . . recovering some contact with the Plan is of the first importance for human beings.  This both reveals to us what it is to live up to our highest potential and empowers us to do so.” ³¹

The last two sentences of this passage help us to see that Heidegger—in striking ways so like German thinkers of the 1790s—was in fact a mutant Romantic. At least the Heidegger of Being and Time was.  For that which reveals to us, per Sein und Zeit, what it is to live up to our highest potential and empowers us to do so is the existential insight that

There is no Plan, Stan.

Forget about a Key, Lee.

Just hop off the Bus, Gus,

And get yourself free. ³²

Taylor notes that the Romantics “made two crucial amendments to the tradition of languages of reality (or insight into reality)”:

“(1) On the ontological level, the Plan is no longer seen on the Platonic model  as laid out in Ideas of perfection existing in eternity, but is rather understood as a direction of growth, toward which reality is tending; and (2) on the epistemological level, our grasp of the Plan is also incapable of matching it exactly, but rather constitutes a kind of translation in our terms of its thrust.” ³³  

We can see something of what Taylor calls ‘template,' Auerbach figura, and Owen ‘serial homology' in what Schneider, interpreting the later Wittgenstein, calls ‘projective step.'   “An existent form of expression,” writes Schneider, “is used in a new context of application . . . and is thus ‘projected' onto new kinds of objects.”  “The starting point of projection is a pre-existing grammatical form, at first necessarily specific to a particular  area of discourse, which is then carried into new  areas of discourse in a free, spontaneous act of creative imagination.”  Of a projection through which a secondary meaning is constituted, it is “typical that it creates for the first time a possible articulation: the ‘figurative expression' is used to open up an area of discourse that otherwise, without the projective step, would not be available.”  If rules of surface grammar—the ‘algebraic' forms of linguistic ‘calculation'—are to hand and mastered, “they invite transformations, projections, ‘misusages'; — that is, they invite new, schematically unfathomable moves.”  (¿ Que es mas macho, pineapple o knife?³⁴ ) That “the imagination (projection) is intertwined with [linguistic] calculation . . . should be considered a characteristic feature of natural languages.” ³⁵   Considered their depth-grammar, tiefe Grammatik. 

These considerations might lead us to guess once more that human Verwandlungsgeschichte consists of projective steps, big and small, in something like a power-law distribution.  Disenchantment has resulted from the cumulative effect of certain high-impact projective steps.  In this light the Axial Revolution and the Scientific Revolution can be viewed as a one-two punch. (Taylor's ‘Great Disembedding' was already implicit in the Axial revolution. ³⁶ )  So that the Romantics' regestalting of the Plan can be projected in our secular day as affirming that Yes, there is a direction of growth toward which reality is tending, and that direction is the arrow of time.  The arrow of time is our experience of the growth of entropy; reality is the fact of ever-growing entropy.  We contribute to this growth with our lives, which, like all lives, are channels accelerating the thrust of entropy's increase. Howsoever life does its living— however  keeping on keeps on—increases entropy. Whenever you are, entropy grows from then— Die Wüste wächst —and tempus accordingly fugit. Magnificat anima mea doominum. And if the quantity of entropy does in fact increase without limit, then Entropie ist das transwendens schlechthin. ³⁷      

HLC is eidological, HHH is variagenic.  West-Eberhard reports that

“Much recent progress has been made toward integrating developmental and evolutionary biology . . . ‘Developmental constraints' is a term symptomatic of this progress, though an unfortunate one because it seems to imply that the main effect of development is to restrict (rather than provide opportunities for) evolutionary change. The previous generation of evolutionists interested in development likewise frequently emphasized conservative aspects—canalization and stabilizing selection—the suppression of deviant variation during development and evolution to produce a functional phenotype near a single adaptive norm.”  

The Forms still tool  us from their graves.  Whereas West-Eberhard's vision focuses on the “importance of plasticity as a diversifying factor in evolution—a factor contributing to the origin of novel traits and to altered directions of change.” ³⁸  The ἀρχή of this plasticity-paradigm gets expressed in Bateson's apothegm: “Variation, in fact, is Evolution.” ³⁹   Or as Gould once put it, “the deepest meaning of the Darwinian revolution [is] to view natural reality as composed of varying individuals in populations—that is, to understand variation itself as irreducible, as ‘real' in the sense of ‘what the world is made of.'” ⁴⁰   Variation as life's tiefe Grammatik. 

Recall now Taylor's claim that “the emergence of language seems to have introduced much greater flexibility, a capacity to change, even to transform ourselves, which has no parallel among other animals.” ⁴¹   But again, pioneering novelty  and altering directions of change is what life does.  After the emergence of life itself the second great emergence was eukaryosis.  The sequelae to that unique event so impress Lane that he exclaims “The void between bacterial and eukaryotic cells is greater than any other in biology;” as his chapter title calls it, “The Deepest Evolutionary Chasm.” ⁴²

How so?  Briefly, the eukaryotic cell enables gigantism and complex morphological and behavioral variety, the prokaryotic cell does not. ⁴³   By Lane's account the abyss opened when an α-proteobacterium merged with an archaeon (a methanogen): “the first eukaryote was born of the union between two prokaryotes, a fundamentally non-Darwinian process [ Riß, Ruck, Sprung (Schumpeter); Einbruch (Heidegger)]—there was no halfway house.” ⁴⁴   The consequent deconstraint has been epochal in its effects:

“Bacteria pump protons across their external cell membrane, and so their size is limited by geometrical constraints: energy production slopes off with a falling surface-area-to-volume ratio.  In contrast, eukaryotes internalize energy generation with mitochondria, and this frees them from the constraints facing bacteria.  The difference explains why bacteria remained morphologically simple cells, while the eukaryotes were able to grow to tens of thousands of times the size, accumulated thousands of times more DNA, and developed true multicellular complexity; surely the greatest watersheds in all of life.” ⁴⁵

Lane writes as Head Yell Leader ⁴⁶  of his fellow mitochondriacs (his word):

“mitochondria rule the world;” “they hold the key to the evolution of complexity;” “The acquisition of mitochondria was the pivotal moment in the history of life.”  “The answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything is not 42, as Douglas Adams once had it, but an almost equally cryptic shorthand: mitochondria.”  “If they don't show us the meaning of life, they do at least make some sense of its shape.  And what is meaning in this world, if it doesn't make sense?” ⁴⁷  

In our enthusiastic appreciation of mitochondria's opening new possibility-space let us not forget that neither they nor the world make sense, we do:—before there was any Dasein there was no meaning of life; nor will there be any meaning after Dasein is no more.  Human existence is itself a watershed in the history of life in that it opens up the possibility-space of Bedeutsamkeit.    In Heidegger's vision, “With the existence of human beings there occurs an irruption [Einbruch] into the totality of beings [in das Ganze des Seienden ], so that now the being in itself first becomes manifest, i.e., as being [ das Seiende an ihm selbst, d.h. als Seiendes offenbar wird], in varying degrees, according to various levels of clarity, in various degrees of certainty.” ⁴⁸   Human existence alone is sense-making:—interpreting, articulating, world-building. And, as the mitochondrion is for morphological and behavioral complexity, so language is der Daseinöffner , the ‘can'-opener of meaning.

HLC Ge-Stellizes, HHH increases Shannon entropy.   Das Ge-Stell is

“the collection and reconfiguration of all entities, through which they are transformed into resources or standing reserve, and stored or placed in such a manner that they are on call and available to be used, combined, and reconfigured in whatever way we see fit . . . an artificial setting-everything-into-place that allows endless forms of combination and reconfiguration.” ⁴⁹

Operationalized by this:

“on the normative side, we see two great imperious demands made by HLC thinkers: (1) each term of our language must be carefully introduced by a clear definition, and we must stick to this definition in all subsequent uses of the term (unless we explicitly revise it); and (2) we must stay away from metaphors and tropes in general in our reasoning with the terms so introduced.” ⁵⁰

And Frege came not to destroy HLC but to fulfill it.  The Frege revolution

“gave theories of depictive power a great new field of expansion.  The resources of Fregean logic, including truth-functionality and quantification, make it possible to organize a host of possible sayables as derivations from more basic assertions. . . . This opened a big field for the anti-metaphysical drive of twentieth-century positivists and others who felt themselves to be the heirs of classical empiricism, and hence of the HLC.” ⁵¹   

The counterpart of this Fregeo-calculus side of language is in Schneider's words “the part that engages our capacity for imagination;” “here a ‘leap' is required of the hearer, a guess at the meaning, whereby she gives free reign [sic] to her situational and language-related imagination.” ⁵²  Laurence Sterne marks the difference by throwing shade at those heads that are

“stuck so full of rules and compasses, and have that eternal propensity to apply them upon all occasions, that a work of genius had better go to the devil at once, than stand to be prick'd and tortured to death by ‘em.

  ⸺And how did Garrick speak the soliloquy last night?—Oh, against all rule, my Lord,—most ungrammatically! betwixt the substantive and the adjective, which should agree together in number, case, and gender, he made a breach thus,—stopping, as if the point wanted settling;⸺and betwixt the nominative case, which your lordship knows should govern the verb, he suspended his voice in the epilogue a dozen times, three seconds and three fifths by a stop-watch, my Lord, each time.⸻Admirable grammarian!⸻But in suspending his voice⸺was the sense suspended likewise?  Did no expression of attitude or countenance fill up the chasm?—Was the eye silent? Did you narrowly look?—I look'd only at the stop-watch, my Lord.⸺Excellent observer!

. . .

I would go fifty miles on foot, for I have not a horse worth riding on, to kiss the hand of that man whose generous heart will give up the reins of his imagination into his author's hands,⸺be pleased he knows not why, and cares not wherefore.” ⁵³  

Imagination, projection, hermeneutic understanding ⁵⁴  drive increase in Shannon variability (Shannon entropy), the “variability of the elements within a distribution, how diverse the objects are from each other within the collection.” ⁵⁵

For instance, Taylor criticizes excessive reliance on a ‘subtraction story' of modernism; a story whose logic goes like this: “once we slough off our concern with serving God, or attending to any other transcendent reality, what we're left with is human good, and that is what modern societies are concerned with.”  But this story, he says, “radically under-describes what I'm calling modern humanism.”  Because,

“The subtraction story gives too little place to the cultural changes wrought by Western modernity, the way in which it has developed new understandings of the self, its place in society, in space and in time.  It fails to see how innovative we have been; its tendency is to see modernity as the liberating of a continuing core of belief and desire from an overlay of metaphysical/religious illusion which distorted and inhibited it.” ⁵⁶

There is no Core, Gore.   Das Dasein im Menschen ist nichts Menschliches ; ⁵⁷  only protean Seinkönnen; a ‘fortunate or unfortunate' by-product of ~4.2 billion years ⁵⁸  of proton-pumping organic chemistry.   Ontotheonomy is better seen not as illusion but as one quite robust, aggressive, variant Sein otype which emerged with the Achsenzeit  and thereafter rose to dominance.  There are only variants of previous variants, new understandings of the self, and innovations, which Taylor characterizes as ‘spaces':—”into the new space of ‘la nation';” “into a new space of freedom and equality;” “a new, less cluttered, more universal and fraternal space.”  “Something like this,” Taylor says, “has happened again and again;” so perhaps

“The power which this kind of move seems to have for us as a species could tell us something important about ourselves, if only we could define it more exactly.  I don't pretend to do that here, but it does seem to me that the power can't be explained just by the negative move, the breaking out of the skein of distinctions and restrictions. . . . The power has to be accounted for partly, even largely, by the positive attraction of the space we are released into: the space of this search for Enlightenment, of salvation, or of submission to God, or the cosmopolis of Gods and humans, to take the four examples above.” ⁵⁹

The positive attraction, the motive force of ‘The View to Elsewhere,' is anticipation.  Or as Sapolsky says someplace, the word of power is ‘maybe.'  Thus dopamine in human beings might be more precisely named ‘elpidamine.'  Sapolsky explains that “central to understanding the nature of motivation, as well as its failures,” is that “dopamine is more about anticipation of reward than about reward itself;” “Dopamine is not just about reward anticipation; it fuels the  goal-directed behavior  needed to gain that reward; dopamine ‘binds' the value of a reward to the resulting work;”  “dopamine is not about the happiness of reward.  It's about the happiness of pursuit of reward that has a decent chance of occurring.” ⁶⁰   He notes that “anticipatory dopamine release peaks with the greatest uncertainty [50/50] as to whether a reward will occur;” and that in circumstances of such uncertainty, “enhanced anticipatory dopamine release is mostly in the mesocortical rather than mesolimbic pathway, implying that uncertainty is a more cognitively complex state than is anticipation of predictable reward.” ⁶¹

To a good first approximation human life is all about anticipation.⁶²   Sheehan paraphrases a germane passage in Sein und Zeit:

“Affect [Befindlichkeit] and aheadness [Verstehen].  As two sides of the same coin, affect and aheadness are ex-sistentials  that characterize how we are open and involved in meaning.  In their unity they complement one another.  As affect I ‘see' the possibilities in terms of which I ex-sist; and as ahead and opening up those possibilities, I am affected by them. . . . the field of intelligibility is ex-sistence as thrown and projective . . . .”  “I always understand things in terms of their possibilities (their possible meanings) because my aheadness is a priori projective. . . . the ex-sistence into which I am thrown is itself projective [Und als geworfenes ist das Dasein in die Seinsart des Entwerfens geworfen]. . . . as a priori projected [entworfen], I am always project ing [entwerfend].”⁶³

A vignette from Gravity's Rainbow (1973)  illustrates affective aheadness, the positive attraction of spaces we are released into, elpidaminergia. Mr. Edward W. A. Pointsman, F.R.C.S., former student of a former student of Pavlov's, yearns for “an exit out of the orthodox-Pavlovian,” a breakthrough that will take him to Sweden and The Prize.   Women find him creepy and avoid him; “they run away uttering screams only they, and he, can hear.  Oh but how he'd like someday to give them something really to scream about.”  Pointsman is self-conditioned: “Conditioned stimulus = x. Conditioned response = hardon whenever x  is present, stroking is no longer necessary, all you need is that x;” and is in “paradoxical phase, when weak stimuli get strong responses.”  Hence, at the mere passing thought of giving them something really to scream about ( x, his fantasized winning the Nobel for Medicine),

“Here's an erection stirring, he'll masturbate himself to sleep again tonight.  A joyless constant, an institution in his life.  But goading him, just before the bright peak, what images will come whirling in?  Why, the turrets and blue waters, the sails and churchtops of Stockholm—the yellow telegram, the face of a tall, cognizant, and beautiful woman turned to watch him as he passes in the ceremonial limousine, a woman who will later, hardly by chance, visit him in his suite at the Grand Hotel . . . it's not all ruby nipples and black lace cami-knickers, you know.”  

Projectively stepping from the foregoing then, Entwurf is the boner of Existenz.

DCW  12/08/2025  

Doug C. Wise's Papers

Ereignis