On an earlier article concerning Qualific Operators

It may serve to clarify that the earlier article on qualifics deals not essentially with the death of mathematics in any erroneous or far-blown poetical sensibility (although it is a poetical sensibility; to say it is poetic for the sake of destroying mathematics would be erroneous or even specious by induction) so much as with categorics as an interpretive system akin to philosophy, that is dealing inhensively--inherently and iteratively or correlatively--with words, thereby replacing in one frame of vision a context for holistic systemology with a context for the holistic systemologization of methods comparable or analogous to math and math systems;

Where in one context a few pieces may be moved to make a beautiful battlefield of math operators as chess pieces, in a further frame of reference initial pieces are partly defined solely by the field of play; if a field is itself an operator, it is arbitrary and erroneous to pick one field alone; this isn't to say that math isn't real, but rather than the just field of correspondence is a 'mutualization' of context-concepts in a balanced manner; otherwise field may fail to define the operator;

Rejecting this previous discourse as in some way typical and fallible (under the context of math itself), the conclusion becomes under a simplification that a math of fields or math of maths is to be emphasized in defining math per se; it could be that my experience is limited enough that these things are real as a prefigurement of any real math concepts; in another framework, the framework of the previous article-as-valid, theory-concepts such as thought experiments may be the higher form of a ground for math itself; it may be that small initial compromises, seeming small, create drastic errors such as the notorious unsolvability problem;

In that context, the proposition of the 'death of math' is not so much a declaration against the validity of numbers and number-theory as it is a dismissal of conclusions drawn under the espousal of 'towers' of theory dependant on a ground that is not theory-consistent; the self-devouring logic is of two faces then: one in which it gains two faces by dependence on 'fundamentals' as a ground (with the acknowledgement of variance at high levels) and another in which theory-coherence or field-coherent thought at basis provides a ground for the contextualization OF contextualization at high levels of thought; in the second case contextualization is already prefigured by the addresal of the contextual idea in the contextual pretext; in the first case there is a duplicity between the presumption of the fundamental and the erratic brilliance of stepping beyond 'ground's idea' so posited;

By positing that the basic is basic, from a certain perspective coherence is compromised; the addresal of coherence is also the addresal intrinsically of fundamental coherence, that is the field-specificity of original idea, at the most pithy level afforded; this is not to say that the operator is divine or describes all math (because inherently math is more holistic than its terms, or may lose reality) instead rather that system in some forms embodies an equivalence to its operators; it is not that system is extensible with the right tools, instead rather as systems and tools gain specificity or perfection, a gain is made in proportion to equivalence, perhaps via the relavence of field or field-coherence;

As an idea I don't know how this applies except through a dimensional and categoric framework I've called Motism or Hypercubism (the second closer to artwork than anything systemic); its possible ideas of beauty embodied in Eridianism or Limnics in their brightness are coherent with systems thinking, however the connection has been limited consciously to me only to symbological representations and not anything strictly rational, except as a sort of poetic game;