a lesson in jurisprudence ii

some notes that could be deemed philosophical

with some examples from sleep and china

the barrier was not there. the barrier appears and is there. the legal wording was not there. the legal wording appears and is there. the barrier legality appear as a binary (not there – there) whereas olafa’s relationship with the trail is nonbinary, rather based on olafa’s knowledge and experience, experience and knowledge the barrier legality lack. the barrier & law are stupid next to olafa and olafa knows this. she applies her superiority to the inferior and the binary becomes nonbinary

now let’s go a step further and apply olafa’s gasnil trill hail in the small city of heresiarch ooQ’s experience to sleep. the legal barrier as material for sleep, and sleep as synecdoche for everything else we've ever talked about

sleep experts in your land, like other experts in your land, in their rabid quest for standards and normalcy (which is frequently a virtualized quest for domination in the simulated era, a quest for clarity and certainty as the entire infrastructure of knowledge begins to fail us) taxonomize, clinicize and pathologize sleep into many categories including hypersomnia and hyposomnia. but this entire edifice of normalcy & abnormalcy, of standard & deviation, is itself defined by an edifice whose normalcy is easily, through diverse experience and intelligence, abnormalized. (if illness is labeled from within cultures of illness …)

there are cultures in which people sleep whenever for whatever and even if there weren’t this wouldn’t mean there shouldn’t be. while oversleep is often interpreted by the normalizers as an indicator of depression, it can as easily be interpreted as a sign of blessedness, of proximity to god, of protest against productivity and the acceleration of the human to death

too much sleep is bad for you, too little sleep is bad for you, what we say are the definitions based on the research is good for you, but what if what is bad for me is good for me or what is bad for me is good for you or what is good for you is bad for me or …

and in that ancient text that distinguishes and blurs names & namelessness, how great is the distance between good and bad? and in that recent text that distinguishes and blurs good and evil, how much difference is there? this doesn’t spur us toward sleep or sleeplessness, good or evil, no or yes, names or namelessness, spurring or not-spurring, distinguishing or blurring, greatness or smallness, do or doesn’t. (but it may be that doesn’t that does …)

(in other words, the binary is debinarized through an i-world relationship unmediated by names. in further other words, my subjective embodied knowledge supersedes your objective disembodied knowledge. [of course this new binary itself can be debinarized … and so on … and this is a game of our land.] i sleep as i sleep without regard to your tyrannical attempts to name and standardize me. i walk as i walk without … i identity as i identity … gender as gender … art as art … name as name … [your monumentalized culture of names is predicated on decontextualized singularities, infantile notions of greatness, sprawling clevernesses within foolish systems, colonial hypocrisies that preach plurality and diversity and practise exploitive monisms])

olafa walks hasnil trill gail in the small city of heresiarch ooQ aplombly and assumes herself absolutely. which is to say, relatively

next:  a lesson in jurisprudence iii

in which phineasetta thadeusina veeblefetzer

is introduced and dispensed with