 |
 |
>> '"The world is my representation" We believe that an interesting question to ask is whether or not ourselves, 'us', is external. There is always space to state that a being must perceive it's own being as external, thus rendering null all distinction between inner and outer that is not outered to be provable. This let's us very skeptic about something inner, and to that point about outer... What's the only way we can reference ourselves to ourselves? Outer'ing ourselves? Hypothesis. So what could be inner? and again, to that matter, outer? it's a never ending circle of repetition and remittal due to referencing and it's double binding... how can we get out of it? better to ask: when were we inside? when were we inside ourselves, when were we 'inner'? (when there was anything 'inner' "and to that point about" anything "outer"?) in text (in explanations, in explications, in discourse) we were never, never! As I'M not, here. [this is also a homage. and I, I here, I'll sign: J.D. ] something that's not representation is the only thing that can be 'inner'. But where there is such a thing? In acting? in the fruition of the act? [another homage but not signed] kisses, hugs and happiness! - Mathematical Club for Religious Cults Members. * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **