gene ray and the hyperbole of nothingness
time cube - instantiation of language; the building of the conceptual;
what language can do is mirror an entital projection;
the moment of love dissolves in the non-need for language; yet the "evil word" is just what is required in every instance of deviation from that mutuality.
what is especially revelatory is the total isolation of linguistic framing - thus it is more valuable than the non-referent schools of mysticism, and more along the lines of the rejected, the poet, or the "nonsensical". the poet however, further fails in this insofar as s/he is read. resultantly, the operation of theorizing is unparalleled in its self-revealing, no doubt in tandem with a perfectly juxtaposed academic stupidity. what is stupid is what is obtuse to a given set's logic, what is academic is the technologically-tending recreation of a synthetic context, potentially independent of any given conventional ideas. academia is most at home in stupidity, relevance is a potential but not a necessity.
"i'd kill for a sandwich right now" - the actual plan of death misinterprets this as language doesn't really refer to an event. it might refer to an event - but might not. grey's site is riddled with impossibilities - precise impossibilities that either inevitably frustrate, or point to metaphors so potential as to be inadvantageous to use - in other words ones that gain meaning only through their agency.
the time cube is not entirely arbitrary - like all ideas/nonsense, it tends towards residued ideas contextualizing it.
--
to compare analytics with this would be a mistake (cf. the comparative "disproval" by dmitry brant - what is there to disprove exactly?) - for his work is continually self-humbling, and fails to slip into thetic regression or the distancing of proposition. the reduction and crystallization of ideas rebounds immediately as its foundation is not at all a lakatoszian hard core, but an honestly humiliating display whose openness violates exactly the lie which fuels an academic discourse. the academic game is firstly a collective agreement to ignore inevitable stupidity (that the claims on which staked arguments are based are never certain or final) and secondly to thrive in a structure of meaninglessness and certainty, to which ray never arrives (exhibited if nowhere else in his desperate, affected and entirely unstatic language, whose very grammar is mocked by and mocks linguistic expectation.)
--
style - at all times there is no case to find claims - the malleability of logic's foundation is so directly bared that the text is interwoven with constant attacks and defense. nothing can ever be said - everything is staked on the imminence of being read, and the potential reply to what can't be stated. to talk of theories or a system is ridiculous, rather we have a transparent graft of what cannot be said, and therefore must said with all force.
--
the potential of the poetic is to quite simply say everything - yet never in any way is there something "existent" in the social sense - or we can say that convention divides the sense-scientific (proof/data/sense/experiment) from the sense-aesthetic (feel/experience/seeming) by practicality.
--
the mit presentation is actually quite illustrative - a lesson in ironic affirmation - not a matter of lies/truth, but rather a matter of inclusivity - "why shouldn't this exist" - "why should anything exist"