GRGR(4) 67.34 Your One And Only

[David Morris]

s~Z:
>'Not "archetypical" westwardman, but THE ONLY.'
>
>What's with this? Why emphasize that Crotchfield
>[If we do not exclude it, in the middle of Crouch
>and Crutch we find the synthesis = Crotch. Look down
>at your middle. You'll see it there between your legs.]
>is NOT archetypical?

This whole "only one" scenario allows for endlessly modified categories.  It
turns out there isn't really only ONE of everything, only one of everything
which is a "form of life."  Well what happens to that ONE when it's killed?
Is it forever an extinct category?  Or does ANOTHER replace it so there'll
still be one of EVERYTHING?  In this world is there room for the invention
of a NEW entity?  Further, it turns out there are an endless number of
Indians.  All you have to do to extend the number is to add a new qualifier:
tribe, city, real or not.  You can slice the Wyrm into thinner and thinner
shades of difference forever.

The movement here is specifically AWAY from the achetypal to the endlessly
specific, possibly at the peril of our sanity.

I think part of the point here is the limits of our logic and our language
to define a world.  The permutations of meaning are ENDLESS, thus: "YOU
NEVER DID THE KENOSHA KID"