Yazdehan manifesto (I) : Description of the hendecalexahedron
In eleven dimensions, each face of a hendecalexahedron can be viewed, not simply by rotating it, or by walking around it, but by holding each dimension singly, or even in combination, and rotating all the others in turn, walking, as it were, the dimension, or subset of dimensions, with its associated face or faces, around the dimension, or subset of dimensions, that we ourselves, from our fluid position as readerly pivot, have become. All faces can then be seen at once, felt at once, tasted, heard and smelt at once — or in any combination you may desire, in any order, simultaneously or sequentially. The totality of all possible rotations of all possible sets of dimensions and faces, and the experience of the observer performing the rotations, the experience of the observer walking in the eleven dimensions, with or without herself forming the twelfth and perfect face of the object, and of walking all faces, bound to her by eleven eleven-dimensional leashes, around the fulcrum of herself, is called, for short, time. Time is the act of reading, and reading gives birth to space.
ABC thenceward on
First snow fallen already again on the mountain at the end of a summer. Yesterday. Back a bit aways from where he is now a bit aways on from where he started. Today. A bit further on. Tomorrow. Further still.
SCHAT v. SNE
Structure of family and group medoids
SCHAT v. SNE : The schizomythological analysis of texts as senimalistic praxis
Application of the hendecalexahedron as made manifest in this Journal by Swopes  to the situation of n-une dialexicalia (where n = number of members of small and/or familial groups having a total membership no greater than, say, n = 5 or 6) during the course of heterolexical subjectivity [Vighdan 1992a, Vighdan 1992b; Swopes 1997] as engaged in by said groups was performed to yield, por dentro de la cuna thereof, medoids of a sufficient duration and durability to be collected and analyzed (clitalyzed) by all means of standard yazdehan procedure. Differences (the residua of altarity) were shown to distribute accordingly, indicating sociophysiological structures deserving of further clitalysis, heterolexicalia, divastigation, ludict, und so weiter.
Yazdehan manifesto (II)
Eleven parts of Despair
Yazdehan manifesto (II) : Function of the hendecalexahedron
Eleven parts of Despair : Yazdehanity and senimality in Nabokov’s book of Hermann
A SCAT is a SCAT : Schizomythic clues across texts imbricate similarities charting altarian texts
The case against reality
Careless and uncaring, crass, craven, fractious, intractable, ungraceful and ungracious even when prancing solo in front of her cunningly crafted Hawaii sex-mirror, sarcastic, arcane, acrimonious, sacrosanct, narcissistic and autarchically absent-minded, uninventive, and inconsistent to a degree that would belabor Mnemosyne herself, reality is a farcically gendered bitch prone to the most protracted bouts of menstrual cramp who tends to plagiarize herself, and not in the good way. This, in a nutshell, is the cardinal thesis, the overarching crux, of my Case Against Reality (CAR). But she’s not content merely to plagiarize her own idiosyncratic simulacra — no, she extracts her sarcoid bric-a-brac from the nacreous intracranial hobgoblins, the incarnate ambulacral imaginings of the live beings incarcerated in the dyscrastic prison of this, her abnormally plump pleroma. This farctate mix — air, wires, wax, rime, risible nothings — of larcenous gimcrackery she’ll then, in a process known as the Consolidation of Antiphenomenal Cæsuræ with the Carlock of Cant and Alliterative Repetition (CACCCAR, or CAR for short), scramble, splice, and cobble, rescramble, resplice, and recobble, into the sacrificial scarecrows and macaronic scaramouches formicating her anfractuous scarious macroscopic epicarp.
Yazdehan manifesto (III)
Yazdehan manifesto (III) : Production of the hendecalexahedron
Yazdehan manifesto (IV)
Yazdehan manifesto (IV) : Consumption of the hendecalexahedron
Living space or foundation? A reinterpretation of the “cubicles” of ancient Mesopotamia based on modern Nachabar building practice
Honeycomb-like groups of rather small bizarre “cubicles” are major features of the excavated architecture of both city proper (sacra urbs) and agricultural purlieu (terra laborata) of ancient Mesopotamia (eg., Kish, city of Zababa; Erbil, city of Ištar; Lagash, city of Ninsuris; usw.). Archaeologists (cf. Nadzeya Hayandzhe, Arkyibim Bebelohe [Babylonian Archaeology], Hrodno, 1968) have traditionally interpreted these clusters as living spaces in which peasants and artisans lived, somehow entering, as one does a dank aboral Huerta-Fukari kiva, for instance, the doorless spaces from above. Observation of contemporary house construction on the Nachabar coast of Acharnabbarchana, however, dispels this view and offers a more parsimonious, though perhaps more drab or “realistic,” interpretation. Rather than living spaces, these cubicles should be seen as the baked brick frames, filled with packed earth, forming the foundations upon which larger structures were built. Such multi-cellular foundations are the traditional means, in the absence of rebar-loaded concrete, used to provide stability in the relatively unstable, and flood-prone, soils of marl, stink mud, clay, sand, and whatnot common to the Nachabar region, and such also were (and still are) the conditions of (ancient) Mesopotamia. Thus, it is quite likely that artifacts found within the baked brick frames, the erstwhile “cubicles,” are simply fill from somewhere else and/or from some earlier time, and have no more nor less cultural connection to the people who lived in the building above than do the contemporary Nachabar with the dirt, rubble, and debris filling the unseen foundations of their own bright, well-scrubbed, white-washed, pristine-marble-floored, and high-ceilinged homes. Reinterpreting the cramped, unlit, and airless living spaces of ancient Mesopotamia as merely the foundations (spuriously excavated) of larger, potentially more airy buildings which have not survived, therefore, has sociophysiological, schizomythological, and yazdehan implications anent the altarity the ancient peoples experienced. Furthermore, whether contemporary building practices in Nachabar and similar structures among the ancient ruins of Mesopotamia and elsewhere represent convergent evolution due to similar pedoclastic conditions or rather a continuous homologous tradition of architectural praxis, future research aims to untangle.
Clitical analysis of sociophysiological altarity : Paul von Lilienfeld’s analogical altarity
Paul von Lilienfeld’s notion (Die sociale Physiologie, Mitau, E. Beobehl, 1879; La pathologie sociale, Paris, Bergerie, 1896) of what he dubs, soit “substance intercellulaire sociale,” soit “substance sociale intercellulaire,” and which Philliber Ward (Appalachian Social Review, 1897) consistently calls “social intercellular structure,” grapples with something intangible, but real, abrogating, I mean, operating in social relations. Vulgar sociophysiologists now characterize this aspect of Lilienfeld’s “intercellular social substance (or structure)” as the hormonal and pheromonal substrate of the “sociophysiologic linkage,” the “sociophysiologic feedback loop [...] maintained by reactions to reactions” (G. A. Adler, Conjunctivism, 2002, p. 885) at play in the interactions between individuals. However, Lilienfeld conflates this vulgar sociophysiological level with overlying cultural levels, thereby giving rise to the definition of “social intercellular structure” as “the material (and perhaps spiritual) capital of society.” This aspect of Lilienfeld’s analogy prefigures B. W. Davire’s (The ronish nene, Reedsbrook, Ladder Books, 1976, ch. 11) metaphorical concept of the nene, and will be pushed perilously close to incomprehension by the eugenical altarity of Reinheimer (Symbiosis: A Socio-Physiological Study of Evolution, London, Hegl Bros., 1920). The further conflation of “social intercellular structure” with Stermer’s “environment of society” (Wyoming Ontological Review of Deontology [WORD], 1860) touches on the fact emphasised by the ethological altarity of Iris Waxmire’s Esquisse of 1906 that the social group(s) an individual inhabits is (are) just as much a part of the individual’s environment as the physical environment of “soil, water, air, flora, and fauna,” and whatnot. You readers are surely aware that, in his Kapital I, as well as that work’s III, Marx wrestles with, and pierces and untangles, in the most gratifying of schizomythological manners, the “something intangible, but real, operating in social relations.” In short, the analogical altarity of Lilienfeld’s “substance intercellulaire sociale” is just another rather bulky and utterly obfuscatory layer, despite its attractive sociophysiological veneer, added to the crinosely reticulated and grubbily anastomosed fetishes of money and commodity.