.01

When considering contemporary theories of interpretation (especially in the literary domain), we can conceive of a range with two extremes x and y. (I refuse to represent it spatially as a line going from left to right, so as not to suggest unfair and misleading ideological connotations.) Let us say that at the extreme x stand those who assume that every text (be it a conversational utterance or a poem) can be interpreted in one, and only one, way, according to the intention of its author. At the extreme у stand those who assume that a text supports every interpretation—albeit I suppose that nobody would literally endorse such a claim, except perhaps a visionary devotee of the Kabalistic temura. — Umberto Eco, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language.

Any text is true as word. It is untrue as not word. The text is beyond word if an author (text supposedly as not text) intends what it means or the reader interprets what it means, or likewise when the text itself as functional authoring or reading personification has and does itself to some meaning (also the meaning, lack of meaning), namely that, like the 'author' or 'reader' it is not only existence but also exists (is in being and therefore is being).

Whether x/y extreme or not, x the 'author's intention' and y in support of every interpretation, everything is text (word or symbol) and is iconic. It is gravity, i.e., differential curvature.

Extremes are no ends of any actual line. They are the icons (not actual dimensions) x and y.

Everything is word—icon is 1i word, index is 2i word, and symbol is 3i word, any of which is point-differential, identity (i), and is word.

Everything or anything is point-differential motion-or-word as such. Icons are mutually exclusive. The idea that they cross each other or that there is a line between them is nonsense. They are the three literary orders, icon (icon¹), index (icon²) and symbol (icon³) and simply are word.

"I do not think that the Peircean notion of semiosis should privilege one of these extremes. At most, it provides a theoretical tool for identifying, according to different semiosic processes, a continuum of intermediate positions. If I ask someone what time it is and if he answers /6:15/, my interpretation of this expression can conclude that (provided there are no other co-textual clues and provided the speaker is not a notorious liar or a psychotic subject) the speaker positively said that it is forty-five minutes to seven and that he intended to say so.

"On the other hand, the notion of interpretation can explain both in which sense a given text displays two and no more possibilities of disambiguation and why an instance of the symbolic mode requests an indefinite series of alternative or complementary interpretations. In any case, between x and у stands a recorded thesaurus of encyclopedic competence, a social storage of world knowledge, and on these grounds, and only on these grounds, any interpretation can be both implemented and legitimated — even in the case of the most 'open' instances of the option y." — Umberto Eco Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language continued.

.02

All problems are deceptions, namely, fallacies, self-deceptions and mental disorders. They are text as if not text, which is contradiction. Progressive antithesis supposedly as synthesis is a typical euphemism for such total contradiction.

Of course thereby the total error is that humans are individually and collectively good or bad in any possible way, and blame and shame each other for it when it goes wrong, and even worse, worship each other if it goes right. The bullshit story is that humans are subjective. But that it goes (or not) at all is what is wrong. It is the error that anything is not text.

So, the conclusion that humans and humanity (supposedly who perceive and drive things) are the problem, is wrong. It is the error that every problem is.

.03

You are no more inside or outside anything than you are inside or outside now.

Everything is point-differential motion i, namely word and man.

.04

Nothing is more inside or outside anything than it is inside or outside now.

.05

The relevant point is that the supposed 'different interpretations' (events) are no such thing. They are different things altogether, and difference is another thing, and is the differential point that everything is.

Things are not in some mutual environment or mutually contain some co-textual stuff that define them as representing the same thing, or being, reference to something, somewhere over there, or in here, or that other time, or in that or this time, relatively fixed over time or in time.

The idea that it is, is the error that is the mayhem.

.06

'Existence' is only abstract as the bullshit that it is bits of action due to being.

Of course then 'being' as that which beings are subjective about at its peak, is 'victims together', and holy farce is the euphoric euphemism for the unity abyss of cacophonic nonsense that it is.

.07

Social justice is the final fascist solution coming together: the xenocide of man.

Everything is word, which is man. 'The Fall' is its first subversion and corruption to human. Antithetical/synthetic (artificial) 'intelligence', or the superbeing integration of 'being' in terms of 'the abstract' is its final subversion and corruption to utter non-existence: posthuman.

.08

Race/sex, the key assault rifle in the psychotic terrorism to riddle and gut the West

And what is the West? Man, which is what everything is, for everything is word, and word is man.

.09

Errors 1 and 2
1. Woman is not man.
2. Man is not man.

'Social justice' is not progress. It is subversion and regression into the newly sacred chaos, farce and nonsense, which is the abyss.

.10