but all of this is taken from within the limits.  from within the consumptive inclusion.  from within the dream of freeing man’s soul from his body.  a self which modifies its environment to suit.  man creates a duplicate, a vessel, and becomes that vessel.  self replication.  chance is contained in a controlled box. creation is tied to an author, to change, to evolution through real-time simulation to avoid immediate death by obsolescence.  in other words, the creation is not independent from our thoughts about it.  the creation has no life of its own.  it is meant to be a vehicle for our self and is inseparable from our self.
and from without…. a meaningless void.  a flicker on the screen. abstention. creations are only appearances disappearing.  a language consuming itself.  an implosion.
traditionally, creation was the production and product of difference.  the difference between male and female.  the difference between genetic code.  adaptation was a product of chance and diversity.  now chance and diversity are things which we preserve.  there used to be a cellular division.  a life separate from the original.  a creation no longer dependent on our thoughts about it.  now there is only cellular synthesis.  now creation is impossible.
it is the image of our self which kills our self.  we attempt to transplant our mortal self into an immortal image of our self through the work of creation.  we attempt to bypass difference.  to overcome the separate life of the creation.  to become our son.  to clone.  while physically the son is a continuation of the father with the interaction of the difference of the mother, the consciousness is not.  physically, if we procreate, we can not help but to exponentially diminish.  life is given through a synthesis of difference, and ultimately, division from the mother.  this is the problem of man’s attempt to attain immortality:  to create an image which does not change is to create an image which is dead; to create an image which does change is to create an image which diminishes (through reinterpretation, recombination, implosion, etc.).  in other words, we either create a body or a soul.
in order to maintain our self, the self must be continuous.  we must transfer our self into our creation without losing the stream of consciousness.  we are limited in the amount of change we can sustain while maintaining our self by the limits of the material which defines the self, by the definition of self, by the language or genetic code which makes up self.  can we transfer our self to our creation if the creation is separate from our self?  if the creation is not separate from our self then is it a creation?  the attempt is to make a creation which is not separate from our self.  and to do this is impossible.  although we can make a mirror image of our self, without the self to look into the mirror there is no self.  the entire construct of language which we believe to be a preservation of the self, only exists as a reinterpretation, a recombination in the physical bodies of others.  (the death of the author).  a text exists only as a body, a meaningless object, without another living creation for it to recombine with.  from outside language there is no language.  from outside the body there is no body.  but more than that: from outside the body there is no language.  from outside language there is no body.  without a body, without a limit, without a definition, there is nothing.  everything is assimilated, synthesized, imploded.  language is the communication between differences.  without differences, without embodiment, without others, language is useless.  without language, without a definition of our limits, of our difference, our body would not be separate from the world.  there would be no understanding of an individual life, of a body – a limit perceived only through language.