Volcels are dense in incels. Few know this.
-
-
... for approximations of both incels and volcels, and thus for all real cases of celibacy.
-
(From here, a proof that, between any 2 types of incel, ∃ uncountably many types of volcel can be left as a trivial exercise for the reader)
-
However, real cases of celibacy do not exhaust all possible cases of celibacy.
-
Before addressing this technically delicate matter, consider that we can have desires about our desires. Some become celibate voluntarily,--
-
... and likewise some become volcel voluntarily (volvolcel). As a convenience we will use a notation where volvolcel is vol^2cell, etc.
-
Volvolvolcel would be vol^3cel, ininvolvolcel would be in^2vol^2cel. Exercise: prove ∄ volincel in the real celibates
-
Thus we can describe many real celibates as x, s.t. 0 = ax^0 + bx^1 + cx^2 + ... ; but not all such equation describe a real celibate!
-
However, they d o describe imaginary celibates; or more broadly, cases of celibacy with both real and imaginary components.
-
There is no way to identify t r a n s c e n d e n t a l cases without first grappling with the mereology of desire
-
No transcendence without commutation; no commutation without equivalence classes; these require desires to be distinct from parts of desires
-
Well-chosen mereological basis for equivalence classes of incels v important. Could sustain an ontological argument against homosexpic.twitter.com/3PsP8yD0pG
-
For the fuzzy-headed, a little illustration of volitional mereologyhttps://twitter.com/InaneImperium/status/792460928113672197 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.