đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș anonymous-cabal-argot.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:35:17. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Cabal, Argot Author: Anonymous Language: en Topics: cities, language Source: Retrieved on 14 February 2011 from http://woodsquat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cabal-argot-terms-of-endearment-research-syndicate.pdf Notes: Oakland, California
Coming together. Speaking to each other.
a project of the Terms of Endearment Research Syndicate
âNothing can be more depressing than to expose, naked to the light of
thought, the hideous growth of argot. Indeed it is like a sort of
repellent animal intended to dwell in darkness which has been dragged
out of its cloaca. One seems to see a horned and living creature
viciously struggling to be restored to the place where it belongs. One
word is like a claw, another like a sightless and bleeding eye; and
there are phrases which clutch like the pincers of a crab. And all of it
is alive with the hideous vitality of things that have organized
themselves amid disorganization.â
The parts of speech are an undeniable force within our lives.
Substantive forms produce the texture of experience, while infinitive
forms are the materials themselves. The essential character of the
substantive is lost during the process of reification (i.e.
capitalization). All substantive forms remain amenable within the lower
case. We are engaged in the collective occupation of space, while noting
the idiomatic tendency of shared life activity, and prefer to describe
our situations with our own language; not with the language of capital.
The state would prefer that we die â or at least become paralyzed â and
therefore incapable of the commotion of our artifice. The austere use of
common nouns, as opposed to their proper forms, is an anti-authoritarian
act in service of the common, and in direct defiance of the spectacle.
The destruction of capital, the state, and technics is dependent upon
the accessibility of the substantive form.
Within a particular frame of reference all three non-finite verb forms
become anarchist tools, however we are resolved to gerundial forms. We
no longer struggle with the question of what âto becomeâ because we are
engaged in the process of becoming. We donât need to discuss what it
means âto fight backâ because we are fighting back. Inviting the
entirety of unmediated experience promotes participation in the action
of our verbs, as with participle forms. To each other we are endearing
friends and discerning accomplices, while simultaneously we are
vitiating villains to the state and conniving thieves to capital. When
we make the conscious choice to experiment freedom, we attempt to be
everything and all at once. If it is to be discovered that freedom is a
non-finite experience, then we must act towards it through non-finite
verb forms.
No spoken language can be âwritten in stoneâ. As we experience daily
interactions, we modify speech to reflect our experiences. This is a
fundamental part of the project of autonomy. The lexicon of
self-determination is infinitely expansive and non-proprietary. The
technics of contemporary society are technics of control, surveillance,
and compulsory social ineptitude. As language is converted to text,
singularity is lost. A descriptive, rather than prescriptive, vernacular
is required in the course of the emancipation of individual experience.
Again, we are anti-authoritarians whom desire the use of descriptive
language when discussing our situations. Semantics are entirely at the
heart of this matter, as it is impossible to communicate amongst
ourselves when we cannot make sense of each other.
When creating our lives together we are continually pushed towards
neologism. Slang, idiom, and jargon come together with other
informalities to establish an interwoven ecology of expression. As we
introduce new senses of existing words, it becomes impossible for us to
be understood in any meaningful way by the out-group; this is
advantageous to those seeking anarchy as in-group/out-group dichotomies
are the tension that will tear society apart. Disparate groups who do
not understand each other are destined to become separate. We do not,
can not, and will not ever understand the language of capital, the rule
of law that the state imposes across us, or the behaviors of the culture
of technics.
New dialects are altogether new languages in-of themselves, while
sociolects are the body of language specific to a hermetic social
grouping. The process of forming a sociolect is a gradual accumulation
of unconscious effort. Cliques seeking self-liberation would do well to
become cognizant of the recusancy of neologism and itâs application as
an effective anarchist tool. Effort is not particularly required; the
creation of unique phrases and usages manifests naturally as the argot
of any genuine clique. Communalization of the syntactic enriches
individual experience, and the ambition of autonomy inevitably edifies
the syntactic (literally âtogether tacticâ). Through reciprocation and
experimentation the syntactic becomes a living thing and a potent
example of the malleability of the conditions of everyday life when we
appropriate the time and space to experiment.
Prescriptivists out themselves as authoritarians unwilling to accept the
vernacular. The creation of a free society requires, at its inception,
the common notion that first and foremost there are no rules. Agreements
exemplified through speech allude to their own urgency as they wax and
wane throughout the experience of each situation. The managers of
conversation (i.e. cops) substantiate their own power through impersonal
rigidity and must be forced out. Members of the out-group cannot
understand the speech of the in-group. This is the essential exclusion
that forms the out-group; a definitive out-group is necessary to the
apposition of the in-group amongst all others.
In arguments, we either take the perspective of the common or the
perspective of power. The managers, and those who covet their coercive
authority, represent a non-group within human society because they are
no longer humane. As the overseen, the managerâs positions are always
external to our lived experiences, and therefore contradict our needs as
singular human beings. Many people will not understand this until, faced
with the frustration of their own inadequacies, they seek to become a
force within society and begin to associate with (i.e. speak to) others.
When arguing, it is preferential to argue for the sake of being
difficult. Semantics are absolutely worth fighting over. As we suss out
the particulars of our speech, we begin to actually understand one
another, and through mutual understanding we begin to come together.
Itâs not about saying yes or no
Itâs not about stop or go
Itâs more about what is within
And how you get there in your mental scene
And how you keep it as part of your truth
Never to stop while trying to choose
Some kinds of decisions, some kind of discord
While often you âre conscious about othersâ reports
And do you believe and donât you forget
How you conceived your thoughts of regret?
Itâs not about being right or wrong
Itâs not about being weak or strong
I do not want to confabulate society, because society is much too large
to even begin to contemplate.
Firstly, I must declare that I am wholeheartedly opposed to the city.
Everywhere there are illustrations of how urban living is not quite
living at all â an unfortunate and harsh reality that exists for all too
many humans. Giving examples of the miseries of the city is a
condescension that most can do just fine without. Capitalism
concentrates the population in urban areas in order to preserve itself
and to become more efficient at the subjugation of its subjects. By
either force or the threat of force, many dissimilar people are held
within proximity to each other but remain mostly alienated from each
other. This is due to a preference for non-group association and results
in a crisis of identity.
The human condition is the condition of being oneself; the tendency to
remain the same under varying conditions is the determinant of identity.
Various associations are formulated within society for various reasons
(e.g. work, school). Individuals whom remain passive in the search for
others inevitably become dependent on non-group association. Many people
stupidly believe that by affiliating with this non-group they become
privileged to power within society. Members of the non-group are not
delusional per se, but merely lack self-knowledge. The non-group is
entirely composed of incorporeal beings who ebb away their lives in
unfamiliar terrain, as strangers to each other and themselves.
Appeals to power go unnoticed, as the managers have countless ununique
denizens to manage. The truth is, there is no truth in associations of
myopic individuals within the imperialism of capital; identity is
misconstrued by duress and proximity is not, in-of itself, a source of
commonality. We are forced into proximity with each other because
society is organized in a way that requires large groups of people to
occupy relatively small areas in order to function, and not for any
other reason. The problem is that people tend to identify with each
other solely through their mutual subjection.
The ideology of capital (i.e. morality) is so pervasive within all
segments of society that forging relationships with most people becomes
undesirable. Competition, control, and coercion are not solely the tools
of the non-group, every citizen is a cop in their own right, and eager
to replicate the same institutions of government that preponderate their
autonomy (i.e. snitch). Among the disempowered, there is a struggle for
authority that is not confined to the workplace: every neighborhood,
scene, and organization has itâs pseudo-managers. Close-knit cliques
safeguard against external disposition by protecting one another from
the force of management, while internal hierarchies are dissipated
through instances of uninvitation.
âMy life got no better, same damn âLo sweater,
Times is rough and tough like leather,
Figured out I went the wrong route,
So I got with a sick ass clique and went all out.â
I do not want to altercate about strangers, because the only things we
share in common are our mutual blank stares and the open wounds of
interacting with a society that is beyond human-scale (i.e. beyond our
âwildest dreamsâ).
The authenticity of human interaction is complicated by the increasing
fragmentation of lifeâs daily activities. In the city, we become bitter
towards everyone because the very fact of our congregation and
confinement contradicts our needs as human beings. Having mostly nothing
to say to the majority of people whom we run across is the consequence
of seeing nothing of ourselves in them, probably because we see nothing
in them at all. By-carving out space to attempt meaningful existence â a
reappropriation of terrain â we negate relationships with strange-ers,
that is, until they become familiar. Developing common sense is just as
much a process of relearning to see as it is relearning to speak.
Mutual experiences (e.g. suffering) are always the basis for
cooperation. Argument in favor of the non-group, made impersonal by itâs
idealization, furthers the alienation of society that manifests through
collective inability to be understood. Rather than be made into
representatives for this characterless non-group, we choose to associate
with, or support, particular factions, particular groups, or particular
persons. By always taking the side of those within our in-group, we
repudiate the representation of the social order that maintains capital,
the state, and itâs technics.
The space I make for myself is for myself. Accordingly, others must be
invited by me to occupy space in common with me, and must actively
maintain their standing with me interpersonally, in order to stand with
me physically.
Active commonality is the substance of our friendships; the forces that
attract us to others when we seek to become a force. Active commonality
becomes the project of maintaining ourselves socially, not for the
recognition or demi-fame of trite appearances, but for the necessity of
interpersonal relation that any survival beyond capitalism requires.
Social networking offers only spectacularization; voyeurism can only
produce a social knowledge of limited depth. Passive commonality is the
end result of external forces applied to our bodies, the residue of
ourselves â when we have emerged from the gauntlets we have been thrown
down â treated as a substitute for genuine affection and consideration.
Shared life activity and criticism produce fondness and understanding.
Out of necessity, shared living actively becomes criminal for the
work-avoidant, becoming threatening to the forces of management when it
strengthens and spreads, and exists purely through associations of
friendship and relations of sharing. The discussion of social relations,
then, begins here at the level of friendships â friendship being the
authentic basis for affinity.
We pursue active commonality as a means of collective survival. Truly,
we have nothing to offer each other except the semblance of a better
life, but that experience is burgeoned by the gifts of our association.
Together, we enrich our standard of living, if not through our material
appropriations, through our being together. And this is precisely why
the âexclusivityâ of our affiliation is so appealing to us; because for
us to be together we must be apart from everyone else. Our in-group
social interactions are only our own when they are not anyone elseâs. We
select close, exclusive associations as a model for collective activity.
Our social goals are the destruction of capital, itâs state, itâs
technics, and the creation of fulfilling lives together.
I donât want to discuss the Movement because there is not any one
particular movement to speak of, but rather particular movements each
with their own efficacy and tendency to inspire or alienate.
Everyone within the radical milieu is subconsciously factionalist.
Personality contrarieties, polyamory, and indirect communication incite
interpersonal conflict (i.e. âdramaâ); factions are formed when
discretionary conflicts between individuals cannot be resolved and are
canonized by a particular clique. This is an inextricable aspect of
social groupings. Along these lines, we are explicitly pro-factional â
we embrace the distinctions and minute differences possible among
various associations of individuals.
Cliques are exclusive groups that share common interests and patterns of
behavior, and are formed when the opportunities for group interaction
are numerous. We come together when we are together. Cliques are the
compilations of remnant adolescent tendencies. In refusing to join the
âadultâ world of work and castigation, the in-group is a cabal â we are
a criminal association insofar as we desire (i.e. understand) ourselves
to be such. We get together to scheme and plot. Within appropriated-time
and occupied space we become friends. A close association of people with
both detailed knowledge and deep understanding of each other are a force
of subversion within alienated society.
Human small-group dynamics are an impossible jumble of mistrust,
misgivings, and misunderstandings. The essential nature of our
relationships has been made awkward by the personifications we craft
ourselves into each day in order to âget alongâ in this world.
Character, individuality, and personality struggle to shine through our
makeup as we act out the myriad roles that society forces us to play.
There is nothing new about this realization: We are all acting. Daily
life is performance art; we have so much experience yet we are terrible
at our roles. We have our lines perfectly memorized but our delivery is
often harsh and strained. At the end of every day our speech is burdened
with misery, which is why we typically have so little to offer our
friendships.
Learning to get along with others in person is obsolete when so many new
relationships are just a point-and-click away. The technics of this
century guarantee the privilege of completing life without ever meeting
anyone; because we can chat to whomever, we no longer need to learn to
speak. If we do not endeavor to find others, we are star-crossed to an
endless cycle of social failure and self-consciousness. Affinity is the
result of the process of discovery, and therefore requires effort.
Temperament is as much a barrier to affection as it is a connective
ligature. Interwoven by mutual concern for each other, we learn to
appreciate the vulnerable character of those within our in-group, and
begin to care for one another. Currently, society can only produce
models of neglect as itâs most basic unit of social relation.
In any case, our tendency is one of separatism. All of our actions are
the manifestation of cognitive choices that we make to do this or to do
that. This is the assertion at the core of accountability. Ultimately,
we fill our days with decisions about this or that activity, making each
specific choice as it comes along. We have made the choice to not only
separate ourselves from the larger social mass of society, but
throughout our daily actions have ensured that we will be separated from
the social sphere of the âradical milieuâ, while still being attracted
to itâs fringes. We have created a force of attraction that pulls us
only closer to ourselves, while at the same time repelling most everyone
else. Through refusal we have confused and disorganized the hierarchies
of everyone whom we would typically experience affinity. Through an
idiosyncratic manner of living we seek to make characteristic
recuperation beyond predilection.
To some extent, we can appreciate that our conversations will likely
never graduate beyond syllogism â but we only arrive at that
appreciation when we are doing the talking.
Otherwise, why should we bother. We have already heard everything that
there is to say, but we have never once heard ourselves. âRadical
discourseâ is a pet name for the intellectualized dissing of the other.
Managers of ideas (i.e. theorists) fail to recognize that social
critique is entertaining as âshit talkingâ but boring as just about
everything else. Gossip has the inimitable ability to enchant whomever
hears it, until it becomes politicized. Surely, far-flung interpersonal
rumors, shit talking, and apolitical gossip reflect some truths about
the world, if only through the social lens of particular imaginative
people.
Once again, perspective plays a primary role in the actions that
antecede liberation. Groups of individuals who would rather occupy
themselves with the joy of their own company become an illicit ârat
packâ. The state has not made space for joy within itâs âfree societyâ;
nor has the left within itâs âquest for freedomâ. Every work-avoidant,
layabout anti-authoritarian is decried for the crime of âfree timeâ. The
free time that we appropriate together for ourselves is the opportunity
to develop affinity from trust and shared living activity. These are the
grounds for limitless association.
Limitless association is not âwithout boundariesâ, but instead without
bounds. There is a threshold that is crossed when individuals stop
holding back and allow themselves to be with others. Deference to
convention is always a submission to authority. Managers use the force
of capital (i.e. separation) to railroad us into submission to the
programs of management. Mass society is derived from the acceptance of
affiliations based on work and proximity (e.g. âwork buddiesâ or
neighbors). In a struggle against power, self-directed relationships
inevitably break down; through individual appetence worthwhile
relationships will preserve themselves wholly.
Each succeeding generation understands itâs own disaffection through the
history that it creates. The preceding discovery to any successful (i.e.
meaningful) action is that nothing is going to change. Life has meaning,
but that fact is not something to be discussed, but verified through
authentic experience.
Reaching the conclusion that consumer choices do not, will not, and
cannot ever matter inevitably leads to the secondary conclusion that we,
as individuals, do not, will not, and can not ever matter because within
capitalism we are only consumers and nothing else. It is not that we are
not anything, nor that we do not posses the potential to become many
things, but that âwe are nothingâ as we are now because we lack the
space to develop ourselves into anything.
Capitalism creates a scarcity of space out of an abundance of geography.
The environment exists as a zone completely external to our selves.
Propagandists have made the world outside of the city undesirable. This
is reinforced by the cops who, through the force of restriction, have
made the terrain outside of the city unattainable. Through miseducation,
the pedagogues have made survival outside of the city impossible. Just
as social confinement within the non-group is an unacceptable compromise
of human social needs, anarchy is the terrene contest against physical
confinement within empire.
Reality is only ever experienced from the perspective of the individual.
All other perceptions of everyday life are works of fiction. All action,
not just insurrectionary action, should take the perspective of the
actor as itâs starting point. If individual perspective is subordinated
to superintendence then individual needs are drained of their urgencies.
Intellectualism is the desiccant that deprives clever tendencies the
ability to sprout. New life is created from a clash of personality; new
forms begin as disruptions of accepted modalities. And so continues the
progression of each day, or rather the digression of authentic
experience. Once we have seen- or heard-it-all, we have seen, and we
have heard it all. Thus, life spent merely getting along is just a
slower death spent in pain. We choose to live in full and then die when
we are finished living.
It is not enough to say that we desire Change because life is just a
series of changes. Instead, we say that we desire life.
We can never be satisfied with anything. Hardly a thing can hold our
attention for very long, because our minds have developed through
technological whizzing from cyberactive destination to destination.
History proceeds much too fast for us to appreciate, let alone
participate, and at much too large of a scale. Hyperawareness of the
inconsistencies of the needs of capitalism and all living things have
been brought to light by all of the media that floods endlessly towards
ourselves. We are attempting to circumnavigate in a sea of âcontentâ. We
are anarchists under sail, being overtaken by privateering Leftist and
post-leftists sailing under the flag of what they mistakenly believe to
be their own respective ideologies. Our ideas do not encompass the realm
of ideology, because they have never been articulated in any
comprehensible fashion. Rather, we make it our project to delight in our
ideas as we act them out.
Leftists view individualism only in the pejorative sense because they
desire to inhabit an idealized non-group. Confounded group associations
(e.g. spoils fans, recreation buffs, groupies, nationalists) are the
by-product of alienation; people do not even attempt to know themselves,
let alone anyone else. Intimate self-knowledge enables the fulfillment
of personal needs and the discovery of individual solutions to
capitalismâs problems, without the deceptions of the non-group. The
non-group is comprised of an increasingly impersonal web of work,
production, and consumption that keeps society functioning and itâs
subjects phlegmatic but alive (i.e. breathing).
The point isnât that we are post-post-leftists, because that would be
absurd, but simply that we are infinitely divisive and annoyed by
everything that is offered to us; and all at once. There are those who
make it their project to ânegate everythingâ; yet we negate their
activity with our own disinterest. In a sense, we are post-negation,
because we form alliances based on the affirmation of mutual interests
and the choices we make in everyday life.
Presently, we are struggling for a change of context so extreme that
each successive day is not, and cannot, be a derivation of the previous;
resulting in relationships that do not, and cannot, resemble anything of
themselves under capitalism. Amidst this change, we would not, and could
not, resemble anything of ourselves.
We know that we have never experienced such a change because when we
examine our lives we see that we are still functionaries of power.
Capitalism makes it impossible to survive in this world without
commodity relations and monetary exchange. âCarving out space for
ourselvesâ means figuring out how get along in this world without
capitalism. Itâs easy to find inspiration in the myriad of verboten and
felonious behaviors that people discover in order to survive. To being
either uplifted or perturbed by how friends (or strangers, or anyone
really) live out each day!
âLife is real estate,
To the ones I hate,
Cops say you must refrain,
From squattinâ, drinkinâ, and hoppinâ trainsâ
The sentimental will make war on the architects.
An eye for an eye will make our masters blind.
They want to throw the whole world away,
only to then have us rebuild what have ruined.
All the right things are still just things.
There are emotional truths encoded in our behavior.
Our language has been trained,
but we havenât realty changed our hearts.
Inside we experience tumult,
outside we display indifference.
Our potentials are wasted,
like every acorn that falls to cement.
We have identity because we are unique,
we have lived,
and we have suffered.
It is our expression that has been channelized and
diverted away from us.
We were brought here and forced to hide our faces.
Now we celebrate the disguising of ourselves among others.
I am the center of my own universe;
to that end I validate my own experience.
With my own body,
I struggle to make space for myself to stand.
In idleness we forget;
to relearn the steps we just keep walking.
âWithin the present social order, time and space prevent experimentation
of freedom because they suffocate the freedom to experiment.â
Making free time is the first project of insurrection. This is a project
of creating self-directed time outside of the management of economy,
market, or industry. This is why we must destroy society. In a society
without masters all of our time is our own; to be used as we see fit.
Capitalism, technics â any of the institutions of society â require that
we make such a distinction. Thus, daily life is reduced to time spent in
subservience to the system. We must enlarge our spaces for ourselves and
secure new terrain for our projects to grow. This âcarving out a space
for ourselvesâ is the first precondition of the demise of the spectacle
â everything comes from this. It is in this space that we discover
ourselves and come together with each other.
So, we all stop working and drop out of school. Exploring what the
various types of welfare and social services have to offer in the way of
free food, housing, cash, etc. ensures that we will be scorned by those
who do work, the guilt-ridden and those suffering the paralysis of their
privilege. The oft misunderstood goal here would be to increase the
amount of free time one has, without decreasing personal resources.
Sharing means that everyone has more of everything, while at the same
time chipping away at the predominate capitalist morality; âEvery man
for himself.â Every âself-sufficientâ pseudo-revolutionary fears this.
And then there is crime. For many, theft can become a fairly stable and
liberatory source of income, just as much as it can become an addictive,
hollow, materialistic subculture. One strategy to avoid the negative
psychological potential of theft could be the forming of crime
syndicates (i.e. gangs) that look after each other while shoplifting and
committing other crimes, and help circulate goods throughout a âblack
marketâ; all the while keeping each others consumptive habits in check.
Those whose who are particularly clever or lucky will invent scams,
which can be shared for collective benefit.
Fraud, stealing from workplaces, reneged credit, trust funds,
counterfeiting, robbery â there are endless creative solutions to the
problems of needing money to survive under capitalism. Everyone who is
reading this understands what it takes to become a âlow-lifeâ or cheat,
but the real challenge is to discover a method to exist against this
world and alongside our counterparts. By sharing our life activity, we
align ourselves with our friends and against every one else.
These ideas are nothing new, just redundancy of the same
counter-cultural lifestylism offered by each generationâs version of
youth culture. Once again, the point here is to create free time. This
new âfree timeâ becomes a means for personal growth â which is in turn a
very necessary-part of collective growth â or it becomes a dead end as a
self-perpetuating lifestyle of work avoidance for the sake of the
avoidance of work. As any lifestyle is committed to memory, it begins to
miss the point of itâs own definition: truly living produces more of the
living. The rote of every day life is a apparition of monotony when
âeverydayâs the sameâ and authentic living has given up itâs ghost.
These days, it is all too easy to forget the importance of face-to-face
interaction. Many do not ever take the time to truly experience anyone
else without the constant distractions inherent in all alienated social
relations. Our collective inability to communicate in any meaningful way
is typified by our constant streams of text. The only conceivable way to
experience unmediated reciprocation is by coming together in the same
physical spaces. For this to be possible we must overcome isolation
through physically being together.
And from genuine connection comes affinity, an intimate knowledge of
each otherâs strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies. Affinity comes
together with trust and time to form friendship. Friendship is the basis
of all shared living activity and entirely misunderstood by everyone.
True friendship is antagonistic toward capital, technics, and the state
in that it directly conflicts with the self-centered individualism and
isolation that is inherent in the institutions of control. With the
inevitable and eventual breaking up of society that all anarchists
desire, friendship will begin to be valued, and individuals will relearn
how to be reliant upon each other in a way that alienated society does
not allow.
And for some people, life will become a series of projects.
âLike any straight edge kid from any era, we also felt we were better
than the rest of the normal kids in town. We had that swagger that
unless youâve lived as a seventeen-year-old straight edge kid, you donât
really understand.â
As has been said, the making of time and space for our projects, our
freedom, and ourselves is the basis for our action. The search for
others is a terrible Odyssey, but there is not another more satisfying
accomplishment than the finding of others. Once found, they become
treasures, truly jewels, which we will inevitably spoil and abuse;
misusing because we only know models of misuse. In the absence of trust,
we are alone. In the absence of empathy, we are again, alone. In the
absence of communication, we are isolated. In the absence of criticism,
we are inflated, taking up more than our own space. Here, we see the
misguided lumbering of the self-righteous, seeking victims to
âcut-down-to-size.â The ability to best attack one another is hardly the
basis for the making of worthwhile associations.
Our failed projects are just magnifications of our own individual
shortcomings.
Our theories can reflect our lifestyles. We can âtalk our walkâ. As we
trudge throughout life searching for friendship, we can encourage
limitless association. We can relearn to speak in new forms â our own â
but we will no longer be understood by the institutions that seek to
control us. Thatâs fine, we hate them. âWe will eradicate.â
âIt first manifested itself when people stopped running and âwent for a
run.â Then, rather than napping, people âgrabbed a nap.â Biting became
âhaving a bite.â In time, people stopped thinking and instead simply
âhad a thoughtâ â which, being singular, meant dullness and low
creativity.â
Towards limitless association and our own diminutive forms!