|
0 |
Method
|
By: Giuseppe Cornacchia
Competition Year: 2012 Votes (0) | Comments (0) |
< Previous Next > |
they are not independent, so, let’s think
going to the core. But the phenomenon?
Well, let’s think about the phenomenon then,
regardless of the core.
Thinking about the phenomenon we have
does the core have anything to do with it?
We could do without using it,
without even realizing it.
Given the core, how simple is the study
of a phenomenon?
Of my phenomenon??
For the phenomenon I invent a local core.
Given the core I derive its phenomena;
given a core, I adapt my phenomenon.
I think about the phenomenon and my phenomenon:
are they the same? Reasonably the same?
I think about the phenomenon via the core.
I think of the core. I think, I think, I think
starting from the phenomenon.
I think of the core. I think of the core.
I think of the core starting from the phenomenon
Or do I invent a core to support my phenomenon?
A core, phenomena;
a phenomenon, my local core;
more phenomena, more local cores.
From the local cores the only core, if there is one.
From the core phenomena,
my phenomenon. And the phenomenon?
A phenomenon is my phenomenon
but is the phenomenon a phenomenon?
From my local core the only core:
I have invented a local core
trying to discover the only core.
Trying to discover the only core
I have invented a local core
that supports my phenomenon.
Rightly adopting a real phenomenon
I have made a discovery. Studying is useful.
Knowing phenomena is useful for inventing things
discovering indirectly.
