A: How many legs does a table have?
B: A table is merely conceptual; it has no legs.
A: Are the things upon which tables stand legs?
B: Tables do not actually stand; such metaphoric arrangements in language are conveniences, and these conveniences are deceptive when they are misauthorized or universalized.
A: What are the extensions upon which tables are made stable against their basis?
B: They have no explicit identity. Any answer depends upon the suppositions and purposes of the one responding.
A: What suppositions are implicit in your response?
B: A nonordinary relationship with the projections often embodied in the English language and an active awareness of the deleterious habits common users of this language are subject to. The desire to transform this.
A: And what makes this relationship nonordinary?
B: The same thing that calls the structures that support tables ‘legs’; yet uncommonly originated and applied.
A: What is uncommon about it?
B: The purposes underlying its application in this conversation.
A: What are those purposes?
B: The desire to clarify to English users the dangers and opportunities implicit in their common linguistic habits.
A: Where does this desire originate?
B: It is an element of a larger array of desires that include the possibility of humans becoming intelligent together.
A: Are you saying that humans are not intelligent?
B: I am saying that whatever intelligence they embody as potential has been cruelly inhibited by their constant exposure to common representational paradigms.
A: What motivates you to attend this matter?
B: A desire for liberty.
A: Are you not at liberty?
B: It’s a matter of degree; and the accessible degree is minimized in any context where nearby others are functionally imprisoned.
A:
B:
: