When a haunted house goes to war with sexiness

Social IssuesPhilosophy

  • Author Thomas H Cullen
  • Published May 2, 2018
  • Word count 496

If a haunted house and sexiness go to war with each other, the visual nature of the battle is hard to imagine.

A haunted house is a supernatural house. As a result, the house is a house that can do anything. Sexiness is also a supernatural force, except that it isn’t conscious. So in the one corner, there’s a force whose power is predicated on its inability to be sentient, and then in the other corner there’s a force whose power is based on the redundancy of its identity being known.

The haunted house is the value of a pointless identity – sexiness is the value of no consciousness.

In typical fashion, the value of a pointless identity is the non-value of a meaningful non-identity (the value of identity). And the value of no consciousness is the non-value of consciousness.

So, as things stand: a haunted house has the potential to be the very image of equality, and sexiness has the potential to be an immobility of hierarchy.

The image of equality vs. the non-movement of hierarchy.

The non-movement of hierarchy is a level playing field of movement (an appropriate way to describe sexiness, as it happens). Meanwhile, the very image of equality is a hierarchy of absence (a very impressive attribute): so what happens then, if equal movement goes up against an absence that has a structure amidst itself?

There doesn’t appear to be anything wrong with equal movement, but I’ll implement a reverse regardless: equal movement is the same as a hierarchy of immobility (and yet prior to this, it was established that sexiness was an immobile hierarchy).

Whereas an immobile hierarchy is just akin to a structure that simply can’t move, a hierarchy of immobility implies a force of nothing that has a structure amidst itself.

So there it is: sexiness and a haunted house don’t need to go to war with each other, since they’re the exact same identity. (Or could the opposite be the truth?)

An absence that has structure seems like an unfair structure. Absence is supposed to be without structure, which means that when absence has structure it is the same as the opposition to structure having structure – the support for symmetry having structure.

In technical terms, the support for symmetry can never be identical to just symmetry, and therefore the support for symmetry is forced to be no symmetry – absence is always structure, irrespective of anything.

Absence is inevitable. Structure is inevitable. Structure is discrepancy – discrepancy is inevitable.

A discrepancy that’s inevitable is a discrepancy that’s oppressed. A discrepancy that’s oppressed is an oppression that’s oppressed – an oppression that’s oppressed is a good thing.

A structure of a good thing is a bad thing – a good thing shouldn’t be the force to annihilate the bad thing, and so the logical thing is for a haunted house and sexiness to go to war with one another

I like thinking about American suburban housewives, and about press conferences and about planets needing teddy bears

Article source: http://articlebiz.com
This article has been viewed 277 times.

Rate article

Article comments

There are no posted comments.

Related articles