"A family has a rule that little Johnny should not think filthy thoughts. Little Johnny is a good boy: he does not have to be told not to think filthy thoughts. They never have taught him not to think filthy thoughts. He never has. So, according to the family, and even little Johnny, there is no rule against filthy thoughts, because there is no need to have a rule against what never happens. Moreover, we do not talk in the family about a rule against filthy thoughts, because since there are no filthy thoughts, and no rule against them, there is no need to talk about this dreary, abstract, irrelevant or even vaguely filthy subject. There is no rule against talking about a non-existent rule about non-existent filthy thoughts: and no rule talking about non-existent talk about a non-existent rule about something that is non-existent...
Rule A: Don't. Rule A.1.: Rule A does not exist. Rule A.2.: Do not discuss the existence of non-existence of Rules A, A.1, or A.2"
I love how this man writes. It becomes a kind of an ongoing ontological process that goes to the root of something but then expands right back. How is it that we have rules for things before there are rules for things? If we don't know what that thing is, we shouldn't be able to even make a rule for it, never mind not even able to have it in our consciousness. It makes me think about many metaphysical debates regarding things such as morals, the good, evil and innocence. Also, does the progression of technology continually make it harder and harder for a child to grow up innocent? What are we before the rules set it? The simplest decision makers are computers as they are ruled by binary, things are either 1s or 0s. But what decision is made if the power is off?
