The aim of this paper will be to borrow concepts of systematic processing, founded in Connectionist research[3] which seeks to explicate and model cognitive capacities of minds through systematic tasks and context-norms (use of context units), to formalize psychological access within a domain of the representational. At root, what becomes represented is a hypermedia-affordance; that is, the structure of the affordance is given as a substrate dedicated to the syntactic processing of syntactic structures from which the properties of productivity, systematicity, inference coherence and compositionality emerge (or at any rate, are said to be emergent properties of a systematic task…

Or “Development”? Whatever a developer chooses to take from this post, it may be applied to development per se, in some areas, just a little? Who’s to say? It’s a well-charted territory: Mike Amundsen (BDFL) already has developed and architected many rigorous and swaggerly demonstrations of the much feared “generic web client”, wherein our understanding is brought to discuss the requirements for both a server too. His book Building Hypermedia APIs with HTML5 and Node kickstarted a campaign, really, of a general style and focus of writing software that is explicit, scientific, testable, highly evolvable and modular: but hypermedia-oriented. Of…

personify the impoverished productions envisaged to bounded distinguisher specialists donning maximal strengths and juridical dexterities, not yet outmoded by denunciations so debilitating they transcend depictions of a desperate and awestruck other free from burdens widespread through recruited periodicities made interactions into terrible teachings

quite decisive those ridiculously molded countertemporaries resort to mealy horizons overtold in segmenting almost losing connections where first stands imposed easier arrivals loosely composed then concluded before victories gave enantodromias toward emergent territories

Notice the space between the end of the parenthetical and the start of the thick arrow, this is at an intersection of content and form, where category and functional interplay demarcate processuation of the real:

YUML

(start)[Start]->(running)
(http/get)[rel="Continue"]->(running)

JavaScript/CoffeeScript/whateverness?

let start = (outcome) -> ({ rel: () -> ({ ...outcome }) })

Syntactognomy

({category})[{Function}]->(output)

So YUML and JavaScript more or less live in the same syntactonomic space of expression. Just write your JavaScript as YUML documents already!

DeLanda’s syntactonomy is of use here: Cause|(|FullMoon, ...|)| where ontological casting, cloning, copying, etc. take place:

[…] From the fact that these associations are taught as…

Apple is Fruit; Mary has Lamb, Client uses Service and so on. Given without Givenness. When without Withoutness. Then without Ifness; Thoughts to Words; Strategies to Plays; Meanings to Sentences; Cubes to Planes; Minds to Beliefs; Paradise to Experience; Ideas to Sounds; Time to Blocks, Befores and Futures; Heat to Motions, Light to Sovereignties and Sorceries and Specificities

Sealed Arguments made for Barbohemians

We plutoniumize an argument by not just extending its possible world accidentally, incidentally, contingently, etc. in ways the container expression might fail to predict, given enough tape, of course.

All in the name of the one Great Pataphor above or below, whichever way we go. Where was I? Take the Last Man Argument:

You are not (just) the last human.

Odd. I feel present. But even that is a technology of understanding: the present, presenting presentation, so too grounded in spatial technology, spatial metaphor and metonymic structure.

Why should I need to be re-mind-ed of it? You are not just the last human! As we repeat this practice back and forth until the beginning begins.

A philosopher dies. Usually we leave them to rest, or let the dead bury their dead. Most of them, at any rate. However, in our time of technocratic delirium (as Dwayne Tunstall decries, in Doing Philosophy Personally) and the urgent demand to Do Something!, which comes to some bastardizing expression effectively equivalent to Play! Or Else! (Hi, Google!), and being there, then, just amounts to every body objectifying themselves for the purposes of misrecognizing classifications such that Goethe’s world-nurse manifests herself, to keep every one in a constantly present-ing state of theory-therapy at play. Wow, that wasn’t even fun to…

A major source of confusion or disagreement within discource around hypermedia web implementations and experiments is its lack of standardization of the link relation[1]. Conceptually link relations can either be bound to a potential or possible action or not: it can exist as an mechanism-independent relation to the context of the resource, or some wider context for which a “continuation” may be necessary to guarantee continuity (or, in other words, consistency in a Service Level Agreement’s implicature toward a workflow as a “service word”[2]).

What this means is that certain actions exposed at a resource (e.g., http://example.com/car/12345) may either set…