An Iraqi army, that goes to New York, and does so so as to talk to a New York therapist about the meaning of the actress Michelle Monaghan is a situation that gives me a lot of emotional warmth. The overall dynamic is fantastic, with each of the component parts all doing a fantastic job to complement each other – to juxtapose with each other.

Of course, the Iraqi army would count as its own component (and presumably every hypothetical member of the Iraqi army – even if it means counting up to the tens of thousands, or more so). And then after the Iraqi army, next would seem to be the New York therapist – although this is where things become a bit murky, since one could always contend that the very city of New York deserves to count as its own component part.

Like the Iraqi army, Michelle Monghan herself is an obvious component, of the dynamic, but that doesn’t do anything to resolve the issue of a possible equality that exists between the city of New York and the New York therapist – something which I will try to resolve now.

In the overall dynamic, the Iraqi army is a visitor. The actress Michelle Monaghan is a problem (because her meaning is being disputed, therefore she can count as a problem). And then finally, the New York therapist (not any therapist in particular, but for the purpose of this discussion just the concept of a New York therapist) is the physical counter-part to the Iraqi army itself– a very interesting perspective, in and of itself.

A visitor. A problem. And a balance to the visitor: how do or how can these three elements be interpreted?

To start things off, a visitor is a guest, and a guest – it can be safe to assume – is an innocence. By definition, a problem isn’t innocent, and since it’s the guest who’s already claimed the meaning of innocence, the New York has something in common with Michelle Monaghan: they too lack the right to be innocent.

The Iraqi army is innocent, however, it can’t be the case that both Monaghan and the New York therapist are the absence of innocence: thus, whilst it’s fair to say that the therapist isn’t innocent, they’re not a problem either, in effect being forced to become a solution that isn’t innocent – and so in effect a solution that is replicated.

With the therapist being a replicated solution, the Iraqi army stands to be a solution that isn’t replicated: if a solution isn’t replicated, it’s a solution which is unique.

So, as of this moment, how do things stand: the Iraqi army is a unique solution, a New York therapist is a typical solution, and Michelle Monaghan is a problem – a problem, a typical problem, and finally a unique problem.

A problem, a typical problem and a unique problem are all the stages of a problem – ergo, all the stages of an evolution.

Before, I said that the city of New York was a potential equal to the New York therapist: obviously, the city of New York can’t also discuss an issue with the Iraqi army (even one as meaningful and as satisfying as the meaning of the actress Michelle Monaghan), but can it at least rank as a type of role?

As far as logic goes, the only role that New York can have is to be a setting. The Iraqi army certainly isn’t a setting, and neither are a New York therapist or Michelle Monaghan – but is it worthwhile to do this?

A setting is a location, and a location is a destination: a destination is the opposite of the means to a destination, and the opposite of the means to a destination has a natural right to be a solution: so potentially, it’s the mere setting of New York which represents the actual innocence in the whole dynamic, whilst all the other component parts of the dynamic are types of a problem.

Because of Michelle Monaghan, the true meaning of innocence is when the basic concept of a problem is the same as the inner workings of a problem, and therefore the basic concept of a solution exists outside of the inner workings of a solution.

Because of Michelle Monaghan, the meaning of stability is to oppose the experience of stability.