[Continue]

Returning to that question: language —— why does it not have pain? Language is not the cosmos.

I was wrong again, and profoundly wrong.

The cosmos is not the limit of ‘human’.

The limit of ‘human’ is ‘cosmic-slurry’ — vaster, more ultimate, and more boundless than the ‘cosmos’.

Language is not the universe —— nor is it the ‘cosmic-slurry’ —— but rather the ‘cosmic-septum’ —— empty and void —— vast and boundless —— a dead angle of the universe —— and also the barrier between the ‘cosmos’ and the ‘cosmic-slurry’ —— without pain —— without dead angles —— without ‘existence-in-unity’ —— nothing but ‘non-existence and non-unity’.

Both “humans” and “sapiens” are “cosmic-slurries”; they all possess “cosmic-septums”, and they all possess “cosmoses”.

That fetus and that infant are also “cosmic-slurries”; they too possess “cosmic-septums”, and their respective sheer intuitions are their respective “cosmoses” —— and a shared cosmos.

That strand of fetal hair, what is it? It is not the cosmos, but the cosmic-slurry; it is also the cosmos, yet more so the cosmos within the cosmic-slurry; not a cosmic-septum, but cosmic-slurry ‘sealed’ by the cosmic-septum —— yet still a cosmos not ‘sealed dead’ by the cosmic-septum; again a cosmic-septum, both the cosmic-septum that ‘seals’ the cosmos within the cosmic-slurry, and the cosmic-septum that does not ‘seal dead’ the cosmos within the cosmic-slurry, and the cosmic-septum that ‘seals away’ the cosmos within the cosmic-slurry, and even more so the cosmic-septum that floats and mutates within the cosmic-slurry, the cosmic-septum, and the cosmos…… That single strand of fetal hair, beyond all possibility of change, is the absolute cosmic-septum, the cosmic-septum that ‘seals dead’ the universe within the cosmic-slurry —— and is itself the cosmic-septum ‘sealed dead’ by the cosmic-slurry and the cosmos; that single strand of fetal hair, which still has the potential to change but has not yet done so, is the cosmic-septum that ‘seals away’ the universe within the cosmic-slurry —— and is itself the cosmic-septum sealed away by the cosmic-slurry and the cosmos; That single strand of fetal hair which could still change but no longer does, is the cosmic-septum that seals the cosmos within the cosmic-slurry —— and is itself the cosmic-septum sealed by the cosmic-slurry and the cosmos; that single strand of fetal hair which could still change and is still changing, is the one influencing the changes in the cosmic-slurry and the cosmos, and is also being influenced by the changing cosmic-slurry, cosmic-septum and cosmos… Yet, is there such a thing as that single strand of fetal hair which is absolutely incapable of any change, yet is still changing?

If all existence is possible, then: that single strand of fetal hair beyond all possibility of change yet remains changing —— what exactly is it? If it is the cosmic-slurry, it would be dead plasma; if it is the cosmic-septum, it would be a dead septum; if it is the cosmos, it would be a dead cosmos…… If it is the cosmic-slurry, and the cosmic-slurry has not changed, then it is possible that the cosmic-septum or the cosmos is changing —— or it is possible that both the cosmic-septum and the cosmos are changing; In a situation where neither the cosmic-slurry nor the cosmos has changed, it is possible that the cosmic-septum is changing; in a situation where neither the cosmic-slurry nor the cosmos has changed, it is possible that the cosmos is changing; in a situation where only the cosmic-slurry has not changed, it is possible that both the cosmic-septum and the cosmos are changing… If it is the cosmic-septum, and the cosmic-septum has not changed, then the possible changes —— similar to the above; if it is the cosmos, and the cosmos has not changed, then the possible changes —— similar to the above… If it is only possible that the cosmic-slurry is changing —— whilst the cosmic-septum and the cosmos have not changed, then the cosmic-septum and the cosmos are ‘absolutely impossible’; If it is only possible that the cosmic-septum is changing—whilst the cosmic-slurry and the cosmos remain unchanged—— then the cosmic-slurry and the cosmos are ‘absolutely impossible’; if it is only possible that the cosmos is changing —— whilst the cosmic-slurry and the cosmic-septum remain unchanged —— then the cosmic-slurry and the cosmic-septum are ‘absolutely impossible’; if it is only possible that the cosmic-slurry and the cosmic-septum are changing —— whilst the cosmos remains unchanged —— then the cosmos is ‘absolutely impossible’; If it is only possible that the cosmic-slurry and the cosmos are changing—whilst the cosmic-septum remains unchanged—then the cosmic-septum is ‘absolutely impossible’; if it is only possible that the cosmic-septum and the cosmos are changing—whilst the cosmic-slurry remains unchanged—then the cosmic-slurry is ‘absolutely impossible’. So, is there a single strand of that ‘absolutely impossible’ change —— where neither the cosmic-slurry, the cosmic-septum nor the cosmos has changed—that is still in flux?

If the principle that ‘all existence is possible’ still holds true, then why is that single strand of foetal hair—which is absolutely incapable of changing—still changing, when neither the cosmic-slurry, the cosmic-septum nor the cosmos itself has changed? Either that single strand of fetal hair is pretending to change —— pretending to alter or pretending to move —— or pretending to be ‘a single strand of fetal hair’, or else the unchanging cosmic-slurry, cosmic-septum and cosmos are fictitious —— it may be fabricating a counterfeit part or whole; it may be inventing a fictitious situation or suspending a disguised image; it may be propagating a falsified change or exaggerating a spurious vitality; or it may be reporting a time or space that is so convincing as to be indistinguishable from the real, hovering between ‘being’ and ‘non-being’—or else that single strand of fetal hair is ‘transcending’ the cosmos, the cosmic-septum, the cosmic-slurry and all ‘limits’ —a uniqueness that is both a possible existence and an impossible existence—equivalent to ‘absolute impossibility’ being fundamentally non-existent —— and equivalent to ‘all existence is possible’ being entirely untenable; or that single strand of fetal hair has never changed —— nor has it ever been altered —— yet it has never been unchanging or fixed —— merely being sliced together and splcied apart —— whilst all ‘change’ , 'possibility’ and ‘alteration’ are but mirages —— and all notions of ‘immutability’, ‘immobility’, ‘impossibility’ and ‘non-possibility’ are likewise mirages —— and all notions of ‘if’, ‘everything’, ‘existence’, ‘validity’, ‘then’, ‘absolute absence’, ‘being’, ‘any’, ‘in’, ‘all’, ‘situation’, image’, ‘part’, ‘whole’, ‘unique’, ‘vivid’, ‘form’, ‘maintain’, ‘limit’, ‘still’, ‘either’, ‘equivalent to’, ‘fundamental’, ‘complete’, ‘ultimate’, ‘true’, ‘merely’, ‘ space”, “time”, “non-existence” are still all mirages —— to the extent that all notions of “pretending”, “counterfeiting”, “fabricating”, “impersonating”, “falsehood”, “fiction”, “fictitious”, “suspended”, “rumoured”, “exaggeration”, “misreporting”, “forgery”, “adulteration”, “passing off the false as the true”, “mirage” are still all mirages……

If ‘mirages’ remains a mirage, if ‘possible mirages’ and ‘changing mirages’ are all mirages, if ‘existing mirages’ and ‘non-existent mirages’ are also mirages, if ‘mirages where anything is possible’ and ‘mirages where nothing is possible’ are still mirages, if ‘mirages that have been completely transformed’ remain mirages, if all language and writing containing these five words —— ‘foetal hair’, ‘existence’, ‘possibility’, change’ and ‘mirage’ —— are ultimately all mirages, then why must ‘I’ and ‘pain’, along with these 460,000 words written as a result, still have a ‘starting point’, a ‘path’ and a landing point’ —— why must there be ‘impulse’, ‘passion’ and ‘stubbornness’ —— why must there be a ‘beginning’, ‘process’ and ‘ending’ —— why must there be ‘character spacing’, ‘punctuation’ and ‘line spacing’ —— why must there be ‘form’, ‘content’ and ‘essence’ —— why must there be ‘part’, ‘whole’ and ‘structure’ —— why must there be ‘true stories’ and ‘truth to the story’ and ‘vivid emotions and sensation’ —— why must there be ‘uniqueness’, ‘vividness’ and ‘ultimate' as well?

I.

Splice.

Be spliced.

Utterly impossible.

Changes do not exist.

Existence is but a mirage.

Change that has never changed.

Change that has never been altered.

I, who have never been unchanging or static.

That single strand of fetal hair —— is it merely a matter of splicing and being spliced?

If everything is sealed within the placenta, is that strand of foetal hair—and everything it connects, and everything it is connected to—sealed within the ‘cosmic-slurry’? The sealed cosmic-slurry becomes the cosmic-septum; that which seals the cosmic-slurry is, in turn, the cosmic-septum; the placenta and the umbilical cord, too, become part of the cosmic-septum. What becomes of the cosmos sealed within the placenta? Either it becomes a cosmic-septum, or it ‘transcends’ the cosmic-septum —— which is equivalent to transcending the ‘sealing’ —— and also equivalent to transcending the placenta and the umbilical cord —— and further equivalent to transcending the cosmic-slurry —— and even more so equivalent to advancing from a fractured ‘sheer terminus’ into a newly born ‘sheer origin’. So, what is this ‘transcendence? It is akin to creating a new  ‘placenta’ and ‘umbilical cord’ capable of connecting parallel cosmoses, or at the very least, ‘revising’ these two…

If everything is sealed within the amniotic fluid, is that single strand of fetal hair—and everything it binds together, and everything bound by it—a sealed ‘cosmic-septum’? A sealed cosmic-septum, much like a specimen; the cosmic-slurry, cosmic-septum or cosmos within the specimen remains a specimen. So, must the cosmos within the specimen and the cosmos as a specimen forever remain mere specimens? Whether transcending or being transcended, it seems utterly impossible, yet as if anything is possible; more than that, it resembles a specimen shattering the mirage, or a specimen being shattered by the mirage…

If everything is sealed within silence, is that strand of fetal hair—and everything spliced together from it, and everything that has been spliced together—a sealed ‘cosmos’? Silence, sealed silence, the silence that is sealed, the silence of that foetus —— as if the cosmic-slurry were silent —— as if the cosmic-septum were silent —— and even more so, as if the cosmos were silent…… The cosmos is silent, as if the cosmos were becoming boundless cosmic-slurry, and boundless cosmic-slurry is boundlessly unknown —— the ‘sheer terminus’ is boundlessly unknown —— everything beyond the ‘sheer terminus’ remains boundlessly unknown…… The cosmic-septum is silent, and likewise, the cosmic-septum is becoming boundless cosmic-slurry…… The cosmic-slurry is silent, for the cosmic-slurry is becoming boundless cosmic-slurry… The sealed silence, like sealed cosmic-slurry, like closed cosmic-slurry, and even more like cosmic-slurry sealing cosmic-slurry… If boundless cosmic-slurry is sealing boundless cosmic-slurry, then that foetus’s ‘unbound-imagination’ is the sealed cosmic-septum, and that foetus’s ‘sheer intuition’ is the sealed cosmos.

If that foetus’s ‘silence’ is the sealed placenta —— ‘unbound-imagination’ is the sealed amniotic fluid —— ‘sheer intuition’ is another sealed foetus, and that foetus, whilst still within ‘silence’ and ‘unbound-imagination’, perceives another foetus in flux… What is ‘another foetus in flux’? The other foetus being gazed upon is also in ‘silence’ and ‘unbound-imagination’… Since boundless cosmic-slurry seals boundless cosmic-slurry, and within boundless cosmic-slurry there are boundless cosmic-septums and boundless cosmoses, there are thus boundless instances of “silence”, “unbound-imagination” and “sheer intuition” being sealed; there are also boundless “placentas”, “amniotic fluids” and “foetuses” being sealed; and there are even boundless “foetuses” perceiving boundless “other foetuses” —— whilst the boundless “other foetuses” are, in turn, gazed upon by the boundless “foetuses”.

What is ‘being gazed upon’? It is as if ‘I’am being gazed upon by the ‘ego’.

What is ‘detecting’? It is as if the ‘ego’ perceives the ‘I’.

What is ‘detect’? It is as if ‘sheer intuition’ is observing.

What is “gazing”? It is as if “sheer intuition” is watching.

Is sheer intuition another kind of “eye”? Yes, but also no.

Sheer intuition is capable of “detecting” and “gazing”, as well as being “detected” and “being gazed upon”; it can also converse with itself, listen to itself, and cherish itself; moreover, it is capable of confirming, creating and revising the “ego”.

[Unfinished. To be Continued]