Erratum 1: concerning ordinal symbolism

Numerous times I have approached the conjunction between one symbol and another, or between a categorical field and a different related field. However rarely have I considered symbolism in a numerical or even computational sense.

There are beautiful notions of an equivalent to "boolean operators" within such a field. One symbol may be operated by division, producing a sense that it is contains a multitude of forms which do not address that concept of unity with the same sufficiency; like saying "the world is a stage", or its a "ship of fools" or "a world in a grain of sand", or "a single written page that was the end of all things".

By contrast, in a completative method, one individual type by special virtue allows a pre-existing field to take a specialized role, akin to leadership or a piece-d-resistance. In a third type, "complementation" different symbols or identities interrelate co-dependantly, like a balance of power, the traits of animals, or components of a machine.

An extreme notion of division which I would like to believe is rooted in some literary norms (in part because of its deep irony), is the notion that the field of human action or even spiritual inclination is a division of a fool or separation of his qualities.

This is a theory based on the idea (related to Tarot perhaps) that half a fool is not in fact less than a fool, because of some sort of sublime failure where in some universal sense he is unconcerned with measure, unable to find the right field of behavior.

I observe in myself for example, that I haven't had an idea of what the right field is, even apart from whether I have found it under one standard or another. In fact, even upon such a field I might be a sheep.

This adds teeth to the notorious question of "what is real?", primarily by granting a kind of albeit abstract materialism to the condition of unreality.