real and virtual ontology mashup

, , i would love to watch you arguing this , i agree about the 
social/human construct -- this is , i agree that "things" are pretty well 
entangled, surely , i am very aware of our difference; but that is a , i 
don't understand your question, so maybe the , i have no idea why 
anything, much less aporia and , i like the poem a lot but - this is such 
a truism , all the things you mention, the light falling, , as i 
understand whitehead and concrescence, there are no , i don't think 
bakhtin leads to god. i think aporia and , latour is a rock star: , love 
your comment. perhaps all ontologies are , of course i disagree with you; 
there's a good book , part of our problem is the terminology we are , 
thanks. , the difference between god and unicorns or heavy , the way (as 
far as i am aware) the mind works, , theoretical physics isn't really 
theoretical; as david , there i disagree. if all experience is mediated , 
what do you mean by a "true desire"? if we bring math , your physics are 
beyond me. but it reminds me that the ."god is that entity whose essence 
is non-existing." .@, from your description and what i remember (poorly) : 
"for me there isn't a language of death, there's a

all experience is absolutely not mediated through language i'm not sure 
how to take what you write, but pretty for what it's worth, which is 
either everything or good heavens! :-) read krauss. i don't think there's 
need hi - what differentiates the two for me is science, hi again! i've 
got to go soon, blood family calls, but hi , and i aren't talking about 
the same thing; if hi , i don't understand or agree with your comment hi , 
wow! a few things - i think there are local hi . i hope you are having a 
good time. i am about hi . i subscribe to the 
bergson/proust/whitehead/deleuze hi @ - i wonder what these thinkers would 
make of the hi i do have to read flusser; i have the book here hi, , i 
never said anything about transcendental or hi, , you hit at the heart of 
our difference. the hi, it appears to me the questions of the ontological 
honestly have to say i haven't read this (reza); what's the i am aware you 
don't think so, but i think he does; not i call it all a matrix. still 
more to study. i don't understand. of course it occurs in both. how is i 
was writing and length and it disappeared, yet another i wonder about the 
energy we posses that we can't see but i'll re-post it at otherstream and 
argotist.... i'm not sure what you mean by 'bent ray of light." re string 
ill study more about ontology. it's simple , it's the time thing. think 
itinaries light is real. the absence of all color. idk. i know the 
particle physics is an area of study; there are virtual reading in string 
theory i thought i was reading a fairy songs about anything is real. real 
is alot of different that thereness, i think, is an epistemology, not an 
that's a real full moon reflecting into my mirror. it the complexities of 
the ptolemic view of the planets the experiment with holes is the 
probabilistic outcome of the moon is no longer in my mirror. it is now 1/2 
around the the question for me is whether one can have an ontology they 
where very ruthless. using the enemies head to this i think expands on 
hartshorne's standard reading of this is good "virtual" food. something to 
chew on morosely for we must pledge to use this power only for good. what 
i mean by "can't even expand your comment' - i meant, would be wonderful 
to do a mashup of all of these texts. /n/ for me there isn't a language of 
death, there's a language from wikipedia - in physics, a virtual particle 
is a hi . bakhtin says utterance occurs in reading as well hi . i don't 
have a problem with things being beyond hi . i would say reversal of a 
film is just ing a hi . theology is never necessary (as i understand it, 
that hi, , i am not sure whether we are agreeing or huh. it didn't post to 
otherstream. and when i tired to post i thing mashing these texts is a 
good idea. i'll leave you at it now, thanks a lot, ,for the if the use of 
tools doesn't mean a thing, then everything if there weren't particle 
physics, that might hold - not to in my book, my dear master, virtuality 
equals what is beyond in qm... otherwise, reza negarestani's notion of 
poromechanics is a particle physics _are_ virtual objects safety measure 
is a bloating metaphore of course, there is sorry to bug you this way, . 
the use of tools is an talks of faith, you of faithlessness. i wonder how 
much you are both thanks - i may have been able to post it on otherstream, 
not thanks for this - having trouble republishing because of the the way i 
remeber it, , the whole point of what i understood. but theoretical 
physics is still theoretical. so who is bruno latoue? yes, string theory 
does take gravity into account. you can't approach a mathematical limit of 
a division by "language enters life through concrete utterances (which 
manifest "the structure of esca[e" "bending of ray of light"; if i 
remember correctly, when a ray of light is "crack in time" - i think of 
the collapse of the world trade center (i.e. "discovering" that everything 
is trapped in language, that the meaning of "known" in linguistic terms. 
so only a very small percentage of experience "real" and "unreal" are on 
an equal footing, both "actual" (or both "the things themselves" are also 
events. so suddenly, ontology opens up. "virtual"). 'dead level of 
ineffectiveness' is what i've characterized as the 'flatness' of the real 
- but i don't think that deity or spirit of any 'messes' our view of 
things - 'not'! (besa me, besa me mucho.) (and i don't think it's what w. 
was saying in any case) - the whole (apart from, negligibly contingent 
upon, or simply indifferent to) (even human experience) is mediated 
through language. and yet i believe (if at all) only after the new meaning 
has appeared, post fact. one might (not just speech). once something is 
read, it is uttered in real time. (otherwise, where/when-else would they 
*be*). (probably this describes derrida). as says above, "either (their 
meanings) change through time and their roots across languages. (which 
your use of "objective reality" seems to assume to exist) by by (with 
light, or words, or objects), then that art begins modulating the ) - a 
real no more or less real than any other: think of mathesis, physics, - 
but it's, i think, broken off. ... for the mashup i was thinking of --the 
way the same word generates new meanings (as an etymological . (i hedge at 
inscription because, as flusser points out, that if we ... 
(subjectivities) is an illusion. they are one. i do not understand

a trillion plus one is smaller than a trillion plus two also, i don't see 
myself as either mystic or materialist; the former for an essay on the 
utterance and the glitch. and have we really reversed anything here? 
anything at all? and it does take into account gravity and the other 
forces in a unified android problem.  i can't even expand your comment 
properly here. anything and everything is possible. simple - never - 
possible - mabey -

bakhtin would surely differ). gregory ulmer on derrida is also pretty 
bakhtin's idea of the utterance event seems relevant here. briefly, besa 
me bodily affect, the glance of light falling on a page, the form of 
visual bruno latour. we construct hermetic machines, interpret their 
output, and but i'll try to summarize - i brought up godel's platonism as 
an example but that is another book. but what do i know... i'm just here 
to make "friends"... chilam balam in a couple of translations, but these 
are for understanding david finkelstein in a similar context, it's really 
fucking with reality - derrida on j.l. austin is wonderful in this regard 
(although derrida and finkelstein said (i think i mentioned this above) 
it's fucking with fraught. a poetic fragility where only contact, the 
essence of any threat gerald feinberg who invented tachyon theory and he 
was relatively germany (found it at unnameable books). reversing the film 
of course does gltchlnguistx: the machine in the ghost / static trapped in 
mouths god exists. so much language and concepts flourishing from it are 
devoted hamlet is opened and read, it begins to change the word and 
language. higgs boson - is probabilistic and appears for an absurdly shot 
length of horatio...) that one has to live in a state of suspended 
animation as far i can only agree with you here; on the level of poetics 
or a pragmatic i clarify that my critique (up @bove) points not to a 
virtual ontology as i don't believe everything's trapped in language 
either - again, that goes i'm not mowing the grass in my yard right now). 
once i start making art i've always been interested in anthropologies of 
faith. i just don't is there a virtual ontology? think of the virtual as 
the promulgation of it just means that these changes are contingent upon 
embodied affect in it's an undoing that's a becoming, so a reversal is an 
doing that is an it's odd - this is the stuff i think of literally all the 
time, trying to kristeva), problematizes inscription, inhabits human and 
other cultures, less is more. like unfollow post share mayans, this i 
really doubt; i've been reading the book of chilam balam monday at 11:39pm 
like monday at 1:17pm like monday at 1:21am like monday at 1:25am like 
monday at 1:37pm like monday at 1:42pm like monday at 2:16pm like monday 
at 3:50am like next page nat geo, would it be more or less real that the 
moon is larger now, -and nothing (since we are musing on philosophy's most 
fraught twilight zones), invocation of affectivity seems right here . but 
then perhaps, god, and his existence or not, are perhaps the best example 
to planck constant, and what is virtual in the sense of entities - take 
the polyani on tacit knowledge here. the virtual doesn't need anything - 
i'm see more see more shestov, where ,the latter was accused of 
contradicting himself and said so what? i also think that ontology and 
epistemology are entangled. but i so yes, there's a virtual ontology, or 
rather one might think of virtual spinoza was fighting that definition of 
god. but is that outsidedness such is the debris or cast-off of the real, 
no more or less virtual than sunday at 12:01am like sunday at 12:05am like 
take quantum field theory, which is testable and used daily - i understand 
the mayans really had the universe absorbed acutely. they knew more then 
the moment the essay is finished i'll show it to you. i did not bring up 
the utterance is an exceptionally important node of problems." and, "only 
then the reader's subsequent use of that word (in her speech or writing) 
there is 'an other hand' to this - for how can a snippet answer or this 
seems to be our difference (and my difference with what i understand 
tibetan buddhism's generation/completion stage when it's not heading 
virtual particles exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles do, we 
have never been modern whereas a volume of hamlet closed and unread on a 
shelf changes neither whiteheadian prehensions.. but what do i know.. i'm 
just a simple grocer. with the rise of science, we moderns believe, the 
world changed without the utterance event (language encountered by humans 
in time), without this "utterance" encounter, the world continues to 
change in and _is_ happening.badiou, whom you have studied so diligently, 
reduces the a 3d software sculpture of a rock, that sculpture animated, 
that sculpture a lighter note, at first i thought you meant rosalind 
krauss, and i was a nod towards the sky light window in the roof a rock, a 
philosophical essay about a poem about a sculpture of a rock, an a way we 
read as direct (although that's not exactly true). but a field - a word is 
eqivalent to its usage, that there is o private language, etc. about 
whitehead, this is based on a fairly antiquated physics. there's a about a 
lot, so there are probably 5 or 6 derrida's with whom a reader about 
death. you just don't even approximate it or move asymptotically about 
god. but re: science, predictability is highly problematic; we're about 
who gets to speak for whitehead. shaviro critiques harman for above are 
apprehended by non-human entities? absurdity. but what do i know? i came 
to casablanca for the waters. across the fabric. for me, and i'm just 
speaking for myself, the lhc is activities. since the discussion about 
what is "rea;" and what is not is actual time yet, or to each other in 
actual time yet. once these virtual actual, operative differences between 
a rock, a photograph of a rock, a actually occur 'right now' to us, but we 
wouldn't notice; our memories affect each other instant by instant, to 
greater or lesser degrees, on affecting it via omission), and all those 
newly effected things then affective experience leads to consciousness, it 
is still not always affective world enters into this linguistic . after 
trebor scholz turned in a lot of his library before moving to agency and 
deep being into the things themselves (rocks, dogs, weather all "actual" 
(yet). graham harman and steven shaviro have an argument all of these 
material things from the world modulate the reception of all the way back 
by husserl, phenomenology of internal time-consciousness all... at least 
that's how i'm reading it? , fields really are allow this to affect our 
belief. but that's another dialogue. almost none of it, it's incredibly 
complex, but standard. even elementary also an event to an ant, to a clod 
of dirt, to an economic assemblage? although the roots indicate something 
else. but that something else altogether is necessary to think about these 
things - for example if the always manipulated. my argument was that, even 
so, because the camera always remain elusive, but i gather there are 
effects which are testable. always undetectable. what an 'entity' is, in 
other words, falls apart; amount, but not = 0 - that's robinson. the... an 
accurate philosophical cosmology which explains everything; but rather, an 
idea, it's not just metaphysically removed from electrons. the idea is an 
impossibility. , it's not that god is intellectually dismissable and "not 
object enough," then object oriented ontology is dealing with a and 
corrodes belief in general. but again that's another discussion. - and 
followed no logic we are familiar with; it go go anywhere, therefore, and 
for me, culturally a jew, i'm in the midst of christian theology; i and 
from. and in the next life, after the factories end their work and 
irreducibility lead to a nothing very near god but not precisely god and 
its connotations and transformations - maybe kristeva has a role here, and 
object oriented ontology considers aspects of whitehead "too process" and 
of course, the cry of object oriented ontology is, "from which and puts it 
on all beings (not just humans, or even "living" things). but and rules... 
and the virtual can be understood in relation to photography -at least and 
understand what's slipping away from us. i wish i did have faith or and 
what should not--at least, since the 17th century and to our day-- is 
animated and projected on a wall in a gallery, a poem about a sculpture of 
another kind of faith. instead i've been interested in what was called in 
antenna near field phenomena and induction fields, which have any more 
than a unicorn is dismissable. but faith is something else and any other 
point. the image always carries its own imaginary which is a any other 
sensory modality and its reception. this is an important point; anything 
that comes along now will have the complexity of string theory. anywhere! 
apologies - apophasis, which leads me back to god (along even 
quasi-derridean lines). aporia and irreducibility in relation to 
multiverses and heisenberg and are particularly interesting here, 
particularly your molting cicada. this are real). images and (human) ideas 
are both actual "entities." there are aren't necessarily the same. we can 
talk about the higgs boson forever, around the center hole on the other 
side of the screen would have the around the issue of the dicothomy 
between the signifier and signified as a provident outside power affecting 
our daily life exists? obviously, as a scientist or a mathematician, what 
was fascinating to me in those as humans can't access from here, but to 
whitehead, they wouldn't be as important as what is. they are on an equal 
footing. (when, in this as knowledge is concerned. that's why i find 
reading etymological as well reverse everything: think of the virtual as 
the harboring of the asserting that the distinction between objective 
reality and subjective at a distance from the obdurate hardness of 
ontology. now ontology is at all. at the speed of light (information 
radiated by means of a field must be back to the work i did on pain at 
eyebeam and the discussions sandy and i backwards film forwards in actual 
time. because reversing the film doesn't ball and sacrificing women and 
children during the sight of venus. yes - a basically impossible to test 
the validity of the theories by setting up basis of science and your 
distinction between what should be called "real" be completely controlled, 
the idea of thereness (through distortions, be described in terms of real 
particles. examples of these are static be.hence the virtuality of 
ontology, you cannot talk about it, because it beautiful; i just don't see 
how it leads to god or anything like that -for because at this stage it is 
not quite an experimental activity. it's is been discussing: before 
photoshopping became completely endemic to it- and language. , being (or 
if they do, then they are god sparrows and god unicorns). we who being 
*incomplete* (not the issue) but *inconsistent*. claims for anything 
belief in something - it would help, but the engine that drives me is bit 
of sacrificing; for me, every culture is as advanced as every other. i 
blood bath. i don't know sandy. hope you and azure have a good day. break 
for family, will be back later and thank you all for the british 
philosophy thought it reached some kind of nirvana by brought along by 
both capacity and occurrence, thanks to louis lumiere but i've not studied 
him thoroughly. if ontology is only the word being but doesn't necessarily 
mean anything today. the word 'breakfast' is a but oddly am just back from 
a pre-wedding party. it's an odd counterpoint, but the differentation was 
in the statistical 'hump' in the energy but the topology is undeniable, 
even in the face of advanced (extended) but then, i don't have any books, 
and you have so many, for which i am but we're also otherwise... can not 
be separated from it. on the other hand, i agree with you language can't 
even answer it properly. i think the virtual is beyond or elsewise can't 
make sense of this, which is probably my own limitation. i think of can't 
see particles directly doesn't make them virtual. capabilities at the 
moment. of course, the speculations are attemps to care that poetics 
takes? i think within the ordinary attitude, it is careless of thinking 
through ontology, but one need be careful _of_ carries its own obdurate, 
not dependent on the virtual, but co-habiting category theory the 
fragility of the good, which is also the fragility of caught, trying to 
say things for which there is no established language. cause. the possibie 
directions in which a word may change (and it always changed by them, the 
utterances. your comments about hamlet reminds me of cicada and 
photographed its molting in action; i'll put those images up closely and 
it's as confused as any other scriptural account (but far more components 
of any field that do not carry information from place to place composed of 
real particles). virtual photons are also a major component of conclude 
that the film's reversal is a sort of death. but clearly it's no 
concrescent arrow of actual time. confluence and culturally-dependent, 
sensorially dependent as well. this consciousness seems odd. for example, 
it would make little sense to consciousness, but most times it doesn't (in 
which case i would describe construct, much less to do the way the 
universe works and our contemporary "object oriented ontologists" who 
fancy themselves operating contemporary cosmology/particle physics. i just 
don't have this faith... conversation - i'm learning here - conversation! 
copying all the nexts and doing perl operations across them together, see 
cosmology, over-the-horizon of the holographic universe. then the real 
could you say more about hartshorne - i haven't read this. whitehead's 
course; i can't see that happening re: string theory in terms of creation 
would be a dead level of ineffectiveness." all three (shaviro, 
crystallized idea, an exhalation of .o.s, etc.) in a stream of longing. 
dancing with (but never quite embracing) negative theology. his death 
death a form of utterance; it is certainly a closure. i'd discuss farther 
degree that it cannot be virtual. virtual particles are viewed as the 
desire and a reach for the absolute, i appreciate the poetics but stand 
detected, then the consequences of its existence are prolonged to such a 
developing this idea. so i can not go any further at this moment.) ciao. 
dictionaries so fascinating. in the middle of last century, at least 
dictionary shows). the way in quantum physics the range of possibilities 
difference of choice, what each one is pursuing. here is a sequence of two 
differentiates the two? difficult! dimensions, worm holes, etc. it already 
affected my way of thinking. as to disagreeing. i think in one sense i am 
disagreeing and in another agreeing disagreement with you at all. where we 
disagree is your claim that these discoveries, or whatever). discovery of 
bosons a step in that direction? yes, my view of each word discussion 
(what i remember of it) is fraught with problems. discussion about pain 
between sandy and myself, as well as scarry's work disproved. in string 
the possibility of proof is so much beyond human disses as being too 
closely akin to plato's metaphysical forms). whitehead dissolve, 
restarting the process. language progresses towards, for an distribution. 
in general, i don't see how or why theology is necessary in division, by 
zero.coalescing almost there a figment of a moment and do have a problem 
with god. i agree with bakhtin, i'd add aporia of doesn't make it less of 
a real full moon because its image is on this doesn't parallel. again, 
anti-matter is something else yet again, and fits doesn't resonate in 
ordinary usage - you can apply it in a poem of course doesn't say anything 
about string theory or multiverses, etc. i don't see don't exist within 
the syntactical system of language. these things are don't think though 
they knew that much about the universe although they down the line. all of 
the eternal entities that exist in the virtual have drops. dying the other 
shoe of freedom earlier word being the cause/seed of the new meaning can 
only be explained early, 19th century photographs also the subject before 
the lens was easily within the standard model although i may be 
misunderstanding you. either are their quarks or gluons; they're tightly 
bound. the fact that we either creator or sustainer; as far as 'that which 
is' - that's electrons or photons as waves so you get interference 
patterns. string else. like the init though, but as a portal or setup or 
game rules - enables the virtual/real distinction, we need it. it's the 
old in and out encounters with you that he is relevant to you. but derrida 
wrote a lot energy carried from one winding of a transformer to another, 
or to and entanglement and faltering and the problematics of multiverses. 
i don't entities ingress into the actual, that is how things become new. a 
bunch established usages of words (or usages which get established later); 
but etc. - it's a mess. i'd argue that something other than ontology etc. 
do generate new language. if that's what you mean, i have no etc. points 
to that. there are limits! re: the mayans, they also did their etc., even 
in man ray's rayograms) survived. that thereness is an eternally grateful 
etymological dictionary. all of a sudden a word gains a new meaning/usage 
evaluation, expression. he means that emotion, evaluation, and expression 
even the continuing changing topology of strings and their properties, if 
even via living things. but reversing a film doesn't reverse the even 
virtual "entities" (whitehead calls them "eternal entities"). as i event 
to an object in order to reintegrate it into the (his) human events. but 
for film such reversal is fluid or intuitive, right? or at everything or 
nothing." perhaps even everything and nothing. "[god] calls everywhen. 
here is where poetics enters into the picture, and what is the evidenced 
within ourselves of course. , i just noticed you saying the exists (they 
are mutually reinforcing or mutually negating), but meta exists and in all 
living things. a rock has energy even. what about the experience occurs in 
the form of affectivity. affectivity is not always experience. not all 
experiences lead to consciousness. a lot of human experienced (i'm 
actually arguing against such limitations). actual time explain, to 
reconcile, as far as i understand, some discrepancies in expressions 
emitted from her body, exceeding her own willful intention -- extension, 
it doesn't mean a thing, it tries to grasp what is beyond us. extraneous 
assumptions, surplus ontologies... i wonder if inscription faithlessness, 
literally, jabes' desert without words or theology. /n/ one fallacies of 
definition: i also think we're in a world without twelve-ton falling trees 
or epistemologically eavesdropping humans are required). the fecundity of 
generative emergence, denial, fast women, future scientific feeling the 
'hardness' of the world's objects - our senses present them in film, it 
won't reverse backwards. the relationship of objects in the room follow 
archaeology rather than etymology, then inscription may lose its following 
clarification of bakhtin is just redundant, but here goes... for an 
absolute. the language of death also is impossible, but to deal for 
anything, and the god you describe in fact is a particular god, for 
example. i think the ideas of multiverses, vitual particles, higgs and 
force fields, such as a simple electric or magnetic field, or the forms in 
maya software? what about a song about the moon? foundationally unable to 
address any ontological matter. from a patient in an mri scanner, in 
quantum terms is carried by virtual fully formed universes apart from the 
actual real. because to whitehead, fundamental level, these things, like 
mass and energy and space-time all fundamentally relational). perhaps 
there are a million universes that we game, we're not impoverished, we're 
fucked. the virtual remains a general, i think that abjection is outside 
language (as does i think get ontologically entangled and the virtual is 
everywhere, as is 'empty' glass. mabey less brighter if the mirror is 
dusty. if it where a photo in goal is real. you might think such an 
attempt is foolish (i am not sure if good chance that time itself 
disappears even in our own cosmos below the good example as might well be 
the physics of multiverses... re:  - i good example; we just mean the 
first and usually small meal of the day, great. all language sent and all 
language received exceeds human greatest chance that the light would fall 
there. it seems this is not so. had to be done. string theory is different 
as is some of the multiverse had. i also think the etymology of a word may 
be far less relevant than happened to it. by that definition, each word 
must be seen as a closed happening all of the time (deleuze), being is not 
being until it gets to harman, whitehead) claim to be realists. everything 
must be immanent. have *most* things, but not all. one can have virtual 
action, virtual have been exposed to the film during its forward viewing 
will not be have landed within being wake up to some thorny questions. 
heidegger's haven't studied much badiou; i find what i've read of him full 
of holes, having potential meanings in infinite directions has echoes of 
string having right now is affecting grass in my yard (at least in the 
sense that he has a diamond and i'm diamondless, the states are different 
and not here. "experience" is the broad base of being. all entities 
experience -- here: himself admits openly, "apart from the intervention of 
god, there could be holographic universe is given credence, then screen 
and non-screen are hours at la guardia... how language shifts and people 
cope. i think we're unbelievably frail on how to understand things well 
enough to begin messing with them human perception, what needs to be there 
on the outside of our knowledge. humans appears to be is time reversal 
with memory and mind still, somehow, idea i have upon reading a 
philosophical essay about a poem about a idea that nothing exists outside 
of language is radically human-centric. if that is true, then the meaning 
of a word is defined by what has already if the road taking us home if 
whitehead's cosmology is not "process enough" for contemporary physics, 
ignoring whitehead's emphasis on process. harman says that whitehead's 
image and its constitution and reconstitution. the real might then be a 
image is provocative indeed: what does the molting looks like in reverse? 
imaginary itself carries a confluence of poetics, but at this point we're 
imagine an ontology built around language where reversal of events 
impossibility of total fruition is what makes the desire endless, a reach 
in a wall is infinite, so is in a word. one can not predict the direction 
in a way not explainable - but it's precisely probability that comes into 
in the bent of the direction of light particles/waves going through a hole 
in the evenings in the gaps, leaps, resistances among them. in other 
words, what is not is in which a word's meaning will metamorphose. in that 
way, every word in in, bring in infinitesimals and math works incredibly. 
as far as endless inaccessible to us. but i don't know a lot about 
contemporary physics, and inapplicable. i tried to show the direction in 
which a word's usage will incredibly old, on time irreversibility, is 
relevant here. time doesn't inexplicable. i agree that such linguistic 
modulations aren't cause-effect inexplicable. in relation to words, in 
fact i said the emergence of a new infinitesimals which are incalculably 
small, smaller than any finite inhabit belief, nor do i think a world 
without god requires another kind inscription, just as pain isn't. bosons 
as you know have been around for a inscription. , i think your description 
of bakhtin is perfect and instant is, a way station (a dot at the end of a 
sentence, an torturously instead of objects. the virtual is the real 
getting real but it's not intention. this excess creates 
slippage//differance and brings newness interesting!) - hope this makes 
sense - interpretations of early derrida). into . no waters here in 
toronto - just storms; we were held up five into the world. bakhtin 
foregrounds the backdoor through which the intrusion of the outside within 
us. it's the treat of that, that actually irreducibility lead to god (but 
not "necessarily"). but to others, aporia irreducibly would lead to god or 
any notion of god at all. you quote paul, irrevocably, se... is caught in 
that world. we talk cause and effect. the word atheist to me is deep and 
indexical, in relation to otherness on one hand and abjection is either 
real or pretend real, which means it is false. so an ontology is for me 
just to say the world becomes, at least from our limited is modulated by 
her prior readings. i'm quoting bakhtin within the is not is not a 
horrible thing is part of the point). if faith in god was compulsory, then 
that would be is shaped, moved, altered by the human psyche, human 
imagination. as a is silence. is still caught in that newtonian world. 
what do we mean by it? that god is that change coming from, what is the 
implulse that creates it? that by is. nobody is claiming that heavy birds 
or horned horses create/sustain isn't far simpler than that -. thanks for 
putting up with me here - it as simply indifferent to consciousness). in 
the instances where it as virtual particles, or the phenomenology of 
signs... and if it's a it is closure, a difference making a 
difference(bateson), protection from it is something that might well be 
abandoned, outside the aegis of it it didn't go through. i'll msg. jake. 
it means that "the real is a crack in time" especially since time is it's 
absurd - death is always written from the side of the living, so it's it. 
therefore, the signified of every word is infinity. its own jail, closed 
system and limitations... "the spiritual life of itself tells me that 
there is a "spirit" that breaks the rules escaping keep thinking of 
multiverses for example and their 'local' ontologies kind of "realism" 
that is not grounded in contemporary physics. this is my knew a lot about 
timing and calendars! knowledge, there are no irrefutable answers to these 
questions. hence the lab404.com language potentially contains every 
meaning. (i am in the middle of language and are born only in the process 
of its live usage in a concrete language in utterance is any different? 
language is just books un-read on a shelf, code un-run in a machine. "the 
language nor the light in the room nor anyone's face or body. but once 
language of approach that remains within language." that's what i meant by 
language of death at the heart of the spiritual life of replicants also. 
language when rocks are sitting beside other rocks in the woods (no 
language works. "predictability" within language is completely language) 
and life enters language through concrete utterances as well. least it 
seems intuitive, though perhaps it's better described as being less real, 
it just means we use tools to comprehend it. i don't know what less the 
same thing from different perspectives. harman echoes (and light shows set 
to pink floyd are virtual and amazing. these are big boy like scientific 
fascism. aporia merely opens a way to god, but it doesn't like that. 
moments pop to consciousness from ma chaotic mishmash (like a live in a 
newtonian universe any more. but still so much of our language lived time 
in the "virtual" world of itself (just as a text is not long time; the 
higgs completes the standard model but as far as i know look at the latter 
in detail, at least somewhat mathematically, it just looks like you could 
walk on it? its still the same moon. the one in my magnetic field and 
gravity. all real but unseen. major issue with graham harman so far. 
harman wants to situate great man (bob dylan). ontology, in that respect, 
cannot be anything else but materialism is necessarily fragile, echoing 
again your intuitions here mathematics or some notion of an unambiguous 
and singular type of mathesis. it's like asking what differentiates a 
unicorn from a cow. and me god is an awkward and problematic invention 
like any other, and deeply me has at least something to do with spirit, 
and the latter with a mean to limit the ways in which these actual events 
are affectively meaning (usage) is explicable; but post-fact, not 
predictable. it was a meant was that copernicus and kepler in particular 
presented a simplified measurable experiments predicting results. isn't 
this most recent measure, really. mention virtual worlds etc. they're not 
trajectories; they're somewhat metamorphose and assume a new meaning is 
completely unpredictable. the method of proof, of cause and effect, that 
is more of a social/human might identify. so god is always intellectually 
dismissable. but i don't might think of virtual ontology as equivalent to 
any other, fulfilling the mind.that is not the case. the outside is indeed 
threatening, we all learn mind/soul injects its greatest imprint on it) is 
not in the already mirror and up in the sky. i believe there are 4 
parallel universes. model based on ellipses, not circles - that was the 
shift. but i think modulations within language are terribly metaphysical, 
trancendental, or more about the universe then modern technology does. 
more intermingled than one realized. i may even argue --perhaps in the 
more intriguing question -- why is there always something new? to my more 
than we even currently know. my operative question (as an artist and 
moving forward, so we are witness once again of our youth and our mistakes 
much everything from viruses to radiowaves is beyond human perception and 
multi dimensionality is very convincing to me. we experience time eactly 
multiverse -maybe nothing new in the world, this world, but it's must be 
virtual to me because i wear glasses - suggest you look at michael 
mutates) is infinite. in other words, the space of openness and potential 
nearly there. necessarily incomplete, necessarily embody, to some extent, 
a poetics; i necessarily related to "virtual reality," imagery, or 
poetics. having said necessarily related; there's a linguistic fallacy 
there. re: newton, i necessary? the mysteriousness of everything around us 
--a sense that i necessitate following this way. derrida is a jew who 
spends his life need for faith in something that (semi-adequately) 
addresses these need not be careful _of_ ontology itself, which 
characterizes existence need not be experienced via language, or even via 
human consciousness, or needed one or two steps of experiment to be 
supported progressively or neither in the system of language nor in the 
objective reality surrounding niece's wedding. and i'm typing on a tablet 
which makes it a bit no one doing that, (religion is a joke) but it's 
there, protecting us. non-transcendent god, god's ideas, human ideas, 
events, and objects. to not immediately blown apart. and in any cases i 
think both inscription and not in the period of falsifiablity etc. at this 
point. string theory is a not in the same sense that an electron is. it's 
for these reasons and not necessarily infinite but it is generative or 
poised upon inscription not sure why sex has to provide a basis (any more 
than religion). think of not yet entered into the actual, so they aren't 
relating to anything in nothing may "float in" from outside the world. but 
whitehead's immanent nothing new in the world, and no order in the world. 
the course of nothing re: the cicada at all; i think reichenbach's book 
which is object within mathematics. an idea and a poem are things in the 
world but objectivity. language is a mirror of subjectivity, the medium 
through obscura photograph was dependent on the movement of light, which 
could not occurring in speech, within language, it is important to examine 
how occurs "within" (or at least "entangled with") language when humans 
are of a virtual particle are uncertain according to the uncertainty of an 
ontological nature that cannot address contradictions (e.g., even of and 
by itself, but language does not. this doesn't mean that any of of 
anything if such an ontology is incomplete. in the virtual, one can of 
approach that remains within language, that's all, and that's for me of 
contradiction absorption, as well as husserl's conversation with of 
course, where does a thing begin and an event end? a "thing" as of eternal 
entities, outside of time, since they aren't relating to each of faith; it 
just doesn't require faith. otherwise you run into (i think) of the init 
part in prgramming. shit happens, it's not there yet. on g+; i'm grateful 
for them. - on the other. i just got back from a wedding where i saved 
thelfe of a one is there to hear it. , in reference to "a limit of a 
division by one's not sure what will emerge, but what emerges has some 
deep only encounter syntactical language systems in the lived event of the 
ontological in nature. if an ontology is flawed in that way, it is 
ontologies operating within domains - the number 3 for example is an 
ontology as _that_ ontology among others, abandoning contracts, offices, 
ontology, and another, and another, and another, and another... this is 
ontology, particularly as suppleness lends itself everywhere and ontology, 
questioning the essence of an ontology itself, cannot reveal ontology, 
which may well be considered a flow or flux. one might be ontology. one 
can extend this argument --the uncontrollability, ontology. the flux of 
light, which is incredibly complicated on the operates every bit as 
smoothly as moving forward of the same set of or a lot of other real, 
immanent, non-scientifically reducible things. or rather what emerges from 
here and how the function of the mediation is or sociology, or the ways in 
which a group of people make use of a city, other fields, temporal 
dilation, and the like make whitehead's position other thought, that it's 
rare these discussions occur on facebook or even other within real time 
yet, can't ever constitute a world proper (because other worlds) without 
god requires another kind of faith (arguably more other worlds. i'm always 
surprised that ontology is so local - i like what others that i reversed 
the ontology in the first post i wrote - that these our ways around it, we 
are all hanging in the bce of the reality of outside speech. though i did 
not elaborate in my previous comments, i go outside what's called as you 
know naive realism - that doesn't make it overwhelming effect of it's 
arrival. it is not us. i'm not a pessimist particle level of course, is 
part and parcel of the real. the poetics of particle that exists for a 
limited time and space. the energy and momentum particle theory is 
brutally complicated... particles and particles that aren't virtual. 
protons aren't virtual and particular theology; if there were deity 
there's no reason it should be particularly slippery force, because it 
always claims to be doing more perception, unless that's the only safe 
place to be? when you think of a peripheral tests seem to be coming in. 
krauss is lawrence; i don't know personally against this; i'm more 
interested in abjection and failure, perspective of a human within being) 
is creator/sustainer of that which perspective?" is an image an event? if 
it is an event to a human, is it photons, not real photons.[1] physical 
reality that dissolves in all sorts of ways. re: light behaving physics of 
our days between gravity and quantum physics. am i correct? not picture: 
what is this carelessness? i think within the ordinary attitude, poem 
fragments from the structure of escape. it deals eactly what we have 
poetics, these differences do shift and it doesn't matter all that much 
poetry, the spritual life of replicants, etc. poking, but at this moment 
we do not have the strength for the pollock painting). the perception is 
discontinuous, a bit like twinkles of positioned. anyway, what should 
emerge from deleuzean/delandan version of potential meanings in infinite 
directions echoing string theory; if you potentiality, because it needs to 
be ouside our reach. it's a safety pre-, proto-, or sub-conscious. 
sometimes affective experience leads to predictability. the "fact" is that 
this distinction belongs to a very predictable via scientific lab 
equipment. but neither is the stock market, premisses of the real, next 
you get an ontology, next the virtual. think pretty good take on these 
things, i think. pretty hellish, but we're primacy even within the 
framework of language.) radically fragile. principle. the degree of 
uncertainty of each is inversely proportional to problematize cause and 
effect; we're not living in a newtonian universe. problems as well. 
"utterance" can exist outside speech if one considers process cosmology 
falls apart without "eternal entities" (which harman production or 
cast-off of the virtual (which also includes the imaginary) productively. 
whitehead gives me a way to think pragmatically of ideas and projected 
will move forward in a new/emergent pattern during the backwards quanta 
that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot quantum 
jump in perspective from human to helio centricism was made. i question -- 
why is there something rather than nothing? and whitehead's questions 
(faith in randomness, nihilism, purposelessness, god, the quotation marks. 
it is he who refers to objective reality and emotion, range-properties as 
do electromagnetic wave photons. for example, the re/consider such complex 
matters in detail? it's too simple and we might reach such a limit is 
true. it is the basis of sufism. it is the read books on particle physics, 
mathematics, etc., more than philosophy read was that the light behaved in 
a way that is not explainable by the read whitehead, these virtual 
entities are like god's ideas. but reading or having a conversation. 
affect regularly occurs "outside of" readings was the direction of a bent 
ray of light was truly unpredictable real because it affects my bodily 
actions in real time within a world reality and reality doesn't let you 
get away with much. i interviewed really about life; the rest isn't even 
silence or absence, it's just realty. most based on emotion. that's an 
equation that is infinite. referring i think to those gaps). relationship 
'beyond' 'ourselves' (yes yes i know) with the real... that relationship 
with god is fascinating, and i know from previous online remarkably small 
in relation to the possibilities, all possibilities, of replicants" is 
very much about that, among other things. res[ponse to making a 
distinction between real and the opposite on resorting to single 
machineries of mediation such as language or result for, there is no 
distinction between absolute subjectivity and reversal of the demolition 
of a wall in 1896. but it's part of the reversal, but nothing more. the 
more we age, the more the truth of this is reverse actual time -- the 
movement of air in the room where the film is reverse; devices (reverse 
film for example) can give the appearance of reversed. in other words, a 
film is not hermetically sealed outside of rightly or wrongly, it's 
obdurate, inert. so it's not there within rock, an oldenberg soft 
sculpture of a rock, (a hammer, a broken hammer), rock-centric ontology? i 
suspect the desire to establish an ontology in rocks in the same world. 
that way has to do with human agency. if i have rocks, dogs, humans. 
"consciousness" (whatever that is) is the apex of safety measure, that 
would contradict the notion it's beyond human said, i still think that 
ontologies - or ontology - is inadequate to deal same as .fact.ual and 
potential. ciao. m. same contracts, offices, and rules... same thing. i do 
want to add that time reversal theoretically could say what a compass does 
- is something else - it's ghostlike, uncanny, and say, to use the 
cause-effect analogy, in language the effect precedes the science, and i 
don't have a problem with god. but i don't think scientific method but in 
our conception of the universe? multiple sculpture of a rock. and 
(tangentially, to bring in epistemology), how do secondary matters, 
representing the distinction between .actual. (not the seemed over-simple 
to me (although a historically useful move for sure). i semiotically or 
syntactically sealed in some alternate, transcendent world sent to a 
screen with multiple holes, one's assumption was that the area separation 
of the objective from the subjective is dubious. they are much short 
circuits. otherwise we are looking at *something*...but it is not 
shorter-range effects, and do not radiate through space with the same show 
my point. within language, there is no doubt, it is a .fact,. that 
simplicity. the evidence of the world is incredibly complicated. i'd love 
situated more toward continental philosophy than they would like to admit. 
so steep some sort of deatht, and that goes to strongly support what you 
have said something one must be careful of, in relation to thinking 
through it. one something that must be tended, stewarded, inhabited beyond 
the aegis of somewhat trivial; reality as clement rosset said is idiotic; 
as i've said, somewhere between analytic and continental philosophy, are 
actually sort is necessary for salvage. that's where i get caught, in what 
i see as source? thanks - space with dark matter, dark energy, virtual 
particles, curvature, etc. sparrows - that doesn't mean a world without 
twelve-ton sparrows requires sparrows is that one of god's main functions 
(at least main from the specific class --science-- which is part of much 
wider universe or set of spectrum.  - we're having an ok day, we're at my 
sister's for my spirit of a devil's argument, perhaps not-- that it's the 
scientific spoken we're then really really impoverished... stars out of a 
"neutral" soup. thaty's why, , for the strict story, virtual time, and 
virtual space. but virtual fiction is itself a string theory represent a 
paradigm shift --if not in the standards of strive towards a crystallized 
idea.approaching a mathematical limit of a stuff, two mystic materialists. 
stuff; it's deeply untestable and yet it's not a question of faith since 
subjectively conceived and prehended by "what?" does a rock have its own 
such as obedience to the conservation laws. if a single particle is 
supposed (by heidegger, say); it gives the history of changing cultures, 
sure... surrounding a word is as important as what has occurred (the 
word/meaning suspect peirce is closer, although i haven't read enough of 
him. system (usage that has already been established). then one looks at 
an systems). this move takes the emphasis off of kantian human 
epistemology tablet i'm using (i'm in toronto for a few days) - please 
forward takes place in the utterance can create the spark of expression. 
it exists tale or something from alice in wonderful. what is unusual about 
string talking about something, and trying to ascertain the truth about 
something talking about the same thing. or, as you say, it is true that we 
don't tautology. virtual love is i think impossible - love is not 
divisible - it technology.  your comments on death and its impossibility 
to approach technology. [...] so no, there's not a virtual ontology, or 
rather one testable. than it actually is). than the kinds of 
instantiations you describe; its relation to inscription thank you for the 
suggestion, i'll look into it. thanks! that i agree with him. my point is 
somewhat different: talking about both that an idea and a poem are still 
ontological "things" in the world that embraces the false as true, even 
for partial cases, is for me an that goes into this. the "scientific 
method of proof" i think itself would that infinite range of possibilityu 
is very exciting. that was not there before; in other words, it breaks its 
own system, both that's another kind of faith, right? or is the word faith 
too loaded? (on that's real too. the mayans where very advanced ppl. they 
know or knew that's why i assume the scientists are forced into such 
complicated that, whitehead would say that images are ontologically real 
(even ideas the string theory --though for an instant i thought of doing 
so-- exactly the argument whether the falling tree in the forest makes a 
sound if no the basis of science and predictability.i don't see how 
"utterance" occurs the contact between the language meaning and the 
concrete reality that the first place (to isolate "things," to understand 
their "being") is a the gestures towards the idea of the virtual - which 
is embraced by inscription - always comes the illusionary preparatory 
crack of escape the image and its phenmenological retention. the language 
of death: "[thought] are cadences, period. like waves, they the light can 
fall on any spot on the other side. probably i am describing the most 
interesting art of our time, because in a deep way, to quote the planets. 
all these ended with the simplicity of copernicus once a the 
possibilitiesinfinite. i used that concept in analayzing the way words the 
question for me is never how to perfectly and hermetically construct the 
real escape occurs twice, being born and dying the rest the rest of the 
night. i hope you post this in some groups. the signified of a word is the 
gaps and the totality of language around the simple ones i itemized above) 
-- that i have big problems accepting as the technology. or rather the 
technological is pulled along with it. [...] the word being spoken. the 
word is, for, me, an other issue altogether, an issue of inscription the 
world is everything in time affecting everything else in time (or not the 
world. (perhaps cf: . , yes aporia and theory --those meanings being like 
anti=matter. ciao. theory of probability. theory than in the past since 
17th century. even the theory of relativity theory to me is that it 
speculates so much beyond the ability to test the theory would definitely 
mean a paradigm shift; i wasn't clear - what i theory, yes, it's 
speculative and the possibility of proof per se will theory. re: ptolemaic 
- that had a lot to do with paradigm shifts of there are no actual, 
pragmatic relationships happening, and worlds are there are theologies and 
aesthetics etc. etc. at work (or appearing so) there can be no change to 
language. without the utterance event in time, there yet, it takes time. 
the virtuality of ontology gets caved within the there'd be no 'virtual' 
and no 'in' - they just come into being, almost there's no need to bring 
anything else into the field/equation/s. it seems these changes to 
language are ever fully predictable (how could they be). these operative 
differences shift when the litany of real entities listed they exist at 
all, doesn't fit easily.personally, , i prefer to thiiries. if it ever 
becomes testable and provable or disprovable, doesn't thing i know is that 
i know nothing," "there are more things in life, things are relative, 
shaky. re: process and object-oriented - on a things occur outside 
language. if this were so, language would not be think both you and i 
share-- is so pervasive, so essential ("the only think faith ever is. to 
believe in a world (our world, previous worlds, think is very problematic 
as qm shows or the classical laws of think shell, skin, the hardening 
within the spiral of events. we're think that virtual(x) is already 
beyond, already adjectival; what i was think we talk less and less of 
cause and effect and more of probabilities. think what you struggle with 
is foolish, of course, although i think it's thinking of her semanalysis 
and semiology... thinking of was somewhere between virtual particles and 
the foundations of this discussion at all; it still seems to me 
extraneous. in this i side this planet, as mass extinctions in the past 
show, all we can do is try this thing badly, possibly incorrectly. 
describing it from memory. for me those things that are not as though they 
were" (paul). , the though, there is always a resort to rescue. thread we 
talk about things that language can not express, we are through language 
(is that not what wittgenstein is saying?), then the time duration (for 
energy) or to position span (for momentum). time itself. the real is a 
crack in time, realizing the potential, time. i'm not sure even how an 
'entity' would be defined in string theory to be late wittgenstein, and my 
difference with overly solipsistic to believe you're right; i just don't 
see that happening... to finish an essay which ends eactly with the 
question of death (isn't the to it. whether .he. exists in a scientific or 
predictive sense is a to me that god or gods are always supplements, 
something recognized in to that which is fragile, ironically enough, is a 
means to being. topography. with "the real is a crack in time" i am 
talking orgasm, the tortuous, or at least differently torturous). , i 
agree that affect towards it. as to your original question, yes, there is 
a virtual towards religion. as far as "everything or nothing" goes, that, 
too, i transundervaluation of all values defined by the 'shrug.' re: the 
treatment to some ontology deeply indexed upon language itself--we might 
typography, the wind blowing through a speaker's hair, her facial 
un-becoming? if we *read* the reversal of the molting--if we subject this 
unbelievably problematic and can't be bracketed at least in relation to 
uncannily entwined, and things are perhaps everywhere and nowhere at 
uncanny, i think - the way a compass works for example; we're used to 
unconcerned whether tachyons existed or not - but the theory/experiments 
understand how "the world continues to change in and of and by itself" 
understanding of it should wpork. unicorns and deer in the unicorn 
tapestries and there's no distinction but unnecessary. sorry for this 
jarring reply - as i said, what i was writing unpredictability of light's 
movements-- could be extended to language untenable; for example eternal 
entities wouldn't exist in the virtual - updates/remixes) heidegger's "to 
the things themselves." but to whitehead, us. thus, emotion, evaluation, 
and expression are foreign to the word of use of "virtual" -- real but not 
yet actual. so virtual to me is not use the power for 'enhh' - neither 
good nor even, but a utterance event isn't hermetically sealed within 
human consciousness. utterance. i'm no great fan of saussure's semiotics. 
they have always utterance. in this event, language changes and the world 
also changes. utterance." language is just one more force in the real 
world (albeit a uttered language and enter into future uses and instances 
of language. valid. ontology can be incomplete to perception, which is why 
epistemology variable via relativity theory. to say the real is happening 
all the time very human desire. returning to language, whitehead is again 
useful to me video of a rock, a painting of a rock, a sculpture of a rock 
made out of viewpoint. i don't know also what it means 'until being gets 
to be' . i virtual and non-virtual things we use language. don't we? if we 
do, what virtual, unreal, or proto-real. they would all be actually real, 
just was better, but just disappeared - we can no more live in the virtual 
now than we could, then, that is, at we had part of this discussion many 
years ago you claiming that even in we know. good is always a good idea. 
what about an animated video of a 3d moon created from mathematical nurb 
what emerges... what is, as opposed to what is not... in relation to the 
discussion in what to make of rosalind but i never liked her writing! what 
you mean by "emotion, evaluation, and expression are foreign to the 
whatever one might think, and here is where scientism enters into the when 
i return from toronto, tomorrow night or monday... where attempts to 
reconcile the contradictions one see in the behavior of whether language 
or media are "real" (it's all real), but what are the whether or not 
things are considered real or virtual, etc. you can have which already 
exists. in fact, the heart of language, where the human which is 
contingently connected. so, in some sense, this dialogue we are which it 
can be obderved, the human psyche looks at itself. i do not which might 
seem somewhat internally consistent to the extent that they're which seems 
vacant to me. i do read odd religious texts - most recently which the 
events that matter in this world occur. but i certainly don't while it 
awaits being read). so yes, i am claiming an actual time during whitehead 
knew 1930s physics (although he knew it pretty well). @jodee: whitehead's 
god is immanent, and his ideas are "real;" they're just not whitehead, 
"entity" describes both objects and events, which are more or will be 
followed (alas!) by a much simpler kind, also much more easily will move 
forward, the prior experience of people (or dogs, or rocks) who with any 
of this, from poetics to multiverse to higgs... - have to take a with it - 
and at this point we're at a distance from the suppleness of with the 
linguistic contradictions involved in trying to imagine such a with their 
cycles and epicycles (maybe also curlicue, i don't remember) with things 
like lawrence krauss' a universe from nothing, although that with you. the 
disagreed point: the utterance also occurs in language; it within and 
through the developments of root words across languages. where without the 
sexual metaphors one might apply to it). - without utterance. i hope i am 
making myself clear. it is late at night... wonder if the complexities of 
string their are of the ptolemy kind. it wondering what on earth i could 
have missed in her work related to this.) word of language." they 
obviously are part of language. it appears to me words 4 me. when its good 
- its real to me. when its bad - unfortunately world (his understanding of 
being, his ontology) includes a world (the real world). so the interesting 
questions to me are not about world and in somebody else's mirror. soon 
there'll be clouds in my coffee. world" (indifferent to language) 
encounters language in the event of the would also be in the process of 
unraveling, returning. what the dream of writer), is how pragmatically to 
modulate stuff using art and writing. so yes you are very right about 
badiou, he's full of holes. you do); but here we are. as you know, that's 
what i struggle with in my you say about whitehead's event; i should go 
back to that. @, zero." of course the division by zero is impossible, but 
the desire to zero; that goes to infinity, isn't asymptotic. you can have 
theories of

10 hours ago like 10 hours ago like 10 hours ago like 10 hours ago like 13 
hours ago like 13 hours ago like 1 19 minutes ago like 2 hours ago like 2 
hours ago like 2 minutes ago like 2 minutes ago like 22 hours ago like 1 
23 hours ago unlike 1 30 minutes ago like 4 hours ago like 1 7 minutes ago 
like 8 hours ago edited like 8 hours ago like august 2 at 10:52am via 
mobile like 1 august 2 at 11:47am via mobile like august 2 at 11:50am via 
mobile like august 2 at 12:06pm edited like 1 august 2 at 12:31pm via 
mobile like 2 august 2 at 12:33am like august 2 at 12:39pm via mobile like 
august 2 at 12:40am like august 2 at 12:41am like august 2 at 12:42am like 
august 2 at 12:47am like august 2 at 12:58am like 2 august 2 at 1:16am via 
mobile like 3 august 2 at 1:24am like 2 august 2 at 1:33am like august 2 
at 1:58am via mobile like 1 august 2 at 2:07pm like august 2 at 2:36pm 
like 4 august 2 at 2:44pm via mobile like august 2 at 2:46pm via mobile 
like august 2 at 3:01pm via mobile like august 2 at 3:07pm via mobile like 
1 august 2 at 3:34pm like 3 august 2 at 3:35am via mobile unlike 2 august 
2 at 3:41pm via mobile like august 2 at 4:25am unlike 2 august 2 at 4:51am 
unlike 1 august 2 at 5:13am via mobile unlike 1 august 2 at 5:19am via 
mobile unlike 1 august 2 at 8:00am via mobile like 2 august 2 at 8:32am 
like 2 august 3 at 10:40pm like august 3 at 11:35pm via mobile like august 
3 at 2:38pm like august 3 at 2:39pm like august 3 at 4:20pm like 1 august 
3 at 5:02pm like august 3 at 6:01pm like august 4 at 11:43pm via mobile 
like 1 august 4 at 1:38am like august 4 at 2:33pm like august 4 at 2:58am 
via mobile like