Aristotle Leaning(s)
29Feb08
This aristotelean categorization is truly divisive baloney.
It’s a sandwich constructed of questionable and, perhaps even, insubstantial substances.
I predict herein a melioristic convergence of all things categorical,
the concretization of all things and ideas
abstract
(much like baloney.
Consider the bicycle, for instance, since it is a gadget. Does this gadgetriness then prove that the bicycle more properly represents a subcategory of the category otherwise known as gadget?
Please help I.
Remain
forever puzzled. Rhetorically, then, examine this itemized collection of verbal units as a simple demand though it unclearly isn’t.
These words do not actualize something demanding despite opaque phrasal shapings.
Enough is often more than
enough.
Filed under: bicycle, categories, gadget | 2 Comments
chicken inwind & hillfoot adrift 
good point(s). the bicycle itself is made up of a near endless category of word objects that dissolve or coalesce depending upon where into the landscape they enter, and upon which object they are placed next to: for instance, I always try to imagine the Pope riding a bicycle.
Wallop me in the noggin with sprocket indeed. My master link prefers to prevaricate whenever the Pope straddles a bicycle. That then, I suspect, precisely embodies divine intervention.