Nonsense à [(p v ¬p0 v ¬(p v ¬p)]. We need to get everything right. The opposite is true as well: [¬(previous sentence) à ¬(first sentence)]. “To be is to do,” but it is not necessarily the case that to do is to be. Basic stuff – hope you’re still with me. Two nauseating charlatans discuss the difficulties of being bipedal. I really hope everything is alright
To take it away to another story is to choose another story, one begun in the same as not-it, but somehow then and therefore possibly contained in some space that is measurably and immeasurably both, going around in a circle that could then be the understanding of either. Either P or not-P, saying this or that is saying already this and that somehow without this being able to state this or that. If the people involved in the history of this story are indeed all right, it may be because they walk around, taking it in turns to be either P or not-P, and always then either P or not-P, this Person or that Person, whether this is being P or not-P. The charlatan must be the one who speaks the longest, or the one who takes the longest to speak.
Men who lack a fondness for bi-pedalling bi-gendered torsos often end up fetishing nonsense. But your analysis is quite correct.
He is P.
She is ~P.
She is P.
He is ~P.
When together, for moments we are both pining to be each other’s P or even each other’s ~P.
What is certain is that we are only ever one for one another.
What is certain is that love talks in nonsense in order to be.
What is certain is that Freddie chose P as a homage to his Penis.
P nor Q nor negation or affirmation are of no real interest to me. The interplay of signs and symbols is out of my orbit. But perhaps it cannot come into orbit. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the interwoven fabric of the text. I fail to see the letter for the meaning, the sign for the signified, and struggle to rear my head above the weave, who am I? Another drowning interplay of absent and present in every text.