Knowing the origin is a form of control. Knowledge of one’s origin is correlated with financial and racial privilege. It’s the affluent families that have family trees going back for centuries. The thing about having control is that it’s hyper-addictive. There is never enough control. And there is always an origin of an origin. In fact, often enough, the idea of an origin is kind of irrelevant anyway – only structures that are self-replicating and/or expanding (imagine a tree-shape) have something even resembling an origin point. And still, this tree is a simplification of more complicated processes. In the case of language, the conquering and expansionist nature of Indo-European provides for a roughly tree-shaped genealogy, thus the suggestion of a single Proto-Indo-European language is quite

Result #1

Knowing the origin is a form of control. Knowledge of one’s origin is correlated with financial and racial privilege. It’s the affluent families that have family trees going back for centuries. The thing about having control is that it’s hyper-addictive. There is never enough control. And there is always an origin of an origin. In fact, often enough, the idea of an origin is kind of irrelevant anyway – only structures that are self-replicating and/or expanding (imagine a tree-shape) have something even resembling an origin point. And still, this tree is a simplification of more complicated processes. In the case of language, the conquering and expansionist nature of Indo-European provides for a roughly tree-shaped genealogy, thus the suggestion of a single Proto-Indo-European language is quite vernacular. And yet, the idea of a language-tree is not very relevant to the idea of a tree. The tree-shape is not a representation of the tree, but of a different, more advanced form of the tree, in which the idea of the tree is less important. Theres no point in suggesting that the idea of the tree isnt an expression of the fact that the tree is a tree.The point is that the idea of the tree is not so much a representation of the tree as the idea of the tree as the idea of the tree.

Result #2

Knowing the origin is a form of control. Knowledge of one’s origin is correlated with financial and racial privilege. It’s the affluent families that have family trees going back for centuries. The thing about having control is that it’s hyper-addictive. There is never enough control. And there is always an origin of an origin. In fact, often enough, the idea of an origin is kind of irrelevant anyway – only structures that are self-replicating and/or expanding (imagine a tree-shape) have something even resembling an origin point. And still, this tree is a simplification of more complicated processes. In the case of language, the conquering and expansionist nature of Indo-European provides for a roughly tree-shaped genealogy, thus the suggestion of a single Proto-Indo-European language is quite vernacular. In the case of the tree, the process is a gradual one that has been unfolding over time. It is as if a tree, though in decay, is still alive, and in the process of decay it is growing into an oak. The question is not whether or not the tree has an origin, but how.The point is not so much whether the tree is an object or a sign, but rather how it is understood as a sign. The idea is that we all know what the tree is, and we can look at it as a thing, or a sign, but not as an object. Thus, the question is, what is it? Is it a sign, or a sign that is a sign? Is it a process, or is it just a process of development? Is it a process of evolution, or is it the beginning? The process is constant, but the process is a constant of progression? And so the question is, what is the point of the tree?The answer is, its a sign that is a process of destruction. Destruction is the process of creating. And the destruction is the process of destroying, of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. Destruction is the process of becoming. The process of becoming is death. Destruction is the process of becoming. The process of becoming is death. The process of becoming is death. The process of becoming is death. Death is the process of becoming. The process of becoming is death. The process of becoming is death. The process of becoming is death. The process of becoming is death.

Result #3

Knowing the origin is a form of control. Knowledge of one’s origin is correlated with financial and racial privilege. It’s the affluent families that have family trees going back for centuries. The thing about having control is that it’s hyper-addictive. There is never enough control. And there is always an origin of an origin. In fact, often enough, the idea of an origin is kind of irrelevant anyway – only structures that are self-replicating and/or expanding (imagine a tree-shape) have something even resembling an origin point. And still, this tree is a simplification of more complicated processes. In the case of language, the conquering and expansionist nature of Indo-European provides for a roughly tree-shaped genealogy, thus the suggestion of a single Proto-Indo-European language is quite vernacular. But a big part of what makes language seem so interesting to me is that it is also a non-Western, non-Western idea, a Westernized, Westernized idea. As such, it is very interesting, and its more than a coincidence that the two are so often mistaken for one another. The difference between the two is that the West is the East. But it is also that the East is the West, and the West is the West.So, to return to the original question: isnt it a coincidence that the language of the West is also the language of the East? Can one really speak the East without knowing the West? I dont think so. The problem with the West is that it is already aware of its own impotence. So it is a form of resistance, and its not really a problem. The East is aware of its own impotence, and is working on a way of dealing with it. But the West is too busy trying to do something about it. The problem is that it is not really a problem. The West is too busy doing something about it.The West is not really a problem because it is not the problem. The West is not really a problem because it is not the problem. The West is not really a problem because it is not the problem. The West is not really a problem because it is not the problem. The West is not really a problem because it is not the problem. The West is not really a problem because it is not the problem. The West is not really a problem because it is not the problem. The West is not really a problem because it is not the problem. The West is not really a problem because it is not the problem. The West is not really a problem because it is not the problem. The West is not really a problem because it is not the problem. The West is not really a problem because it is not the problem.

Result #4

Knowing the origin is a form of control. Knowledge of one’s origin is correlated with financial and racial privilege. It’s the affluent families that have family trees going back for centuries. The thing about having control is that it’s hyper-addictive. There is never enough control. And there is always an origin of an origin. In fact, often enough, the idea of an origin is kind of irrelevant anyway – only structures that are self-replicating and/or expanding (imagine a tree-shape) have something even resembling an origin point. And still, this tree is a simplification of more complicated processes. In the case of language, the conquering and expansionist nature of Indo-European provides for a roughly tree-shaped genealogy, thus the suggestion of a single Proto-Indo-European language is quite vernacular. As for the idea of an origin, the cultural and linguistic origins of the idea of a linguistic root system are often so far removed from the real location of the root system that the idea of a root system is not even viable. The roots are always not the same, and the only thing that can be said for the root system is that it is part of the root system. The only thing that is certain is that the root system is not the same as the root system.This is the point of the game, the underlying idea of the game, a root system that is not a root system. The game is the idea of the root system. The game is the idea that a root system is a structure that, in the beginning, is a structure of the root system. This is the point of the game, and it is the most obvious part of the game.The idea of the root system is not a simple idea. It is a complex idea. The idea of the root system is not the idea of the root system. The root system is not an idea. The idea of the root system is the idea of the root system. The root system is not the idea of the root system. The idea of the root system is the idea of the root system. The root system is not the idea of the root system. The idea of the root system is the idea of the root system.The root system is not the idea of the root system. The idea of the root system is not the idea of the root system. The root system is not the idea of the root system. The idea of the root system is the idea of the root system. The root system is not the idea of the root system. The idea of the root system is the idea of the root system. The root system is not the idea of the root system.The idea of the root system is not the idea of the root system.

Result #5

Knowing the origin is a form of control. Knowledge of one’s origin is correlated with financial and racial privilege. It’s the affluent families that have family trees going back for centuries. The thing about having control is that it’s hyper-addictive. There is never enough control. And there is always an origin of an origin. In fact, often enough, the idea of an origin is kind of irrelevant anyway – only structures that are self-replicating and/or expanding (imagine a tree-shape) have something even resembling an origin point. And still, this tree is a simplification of more complicated processes. In the case of language, the conquering and expansionist nature of Indo-European provides for a roughly tree-shaped genealogy, thus the suggestion of a single Proto-Indo-European language is quite vernacular. The point is that, by the same token, it isnt necessarily the same as a language that has been conquered and expanded by the invention of another.In the end, it seems that theres an analysis to be made here, and I am as interested as any scholar or scholar to see what it is. But, after all, the question is not whether the analysis is good or bad, but whether or not the analysis is necessary. A language is acquired and destroyed, and, if not, the problem is that the acquisition of a language is at the same time an expansion and the destruction of a language is. If the question is whether it is possible to see the idea of an origin, then I would say that it is, because of the theoretical baggage that accompanies the notion of an origin. In other words, the idea of an origin is not necessarily a negative idea. The theory of linguistic acquisition is a theory, and it is a theory that, if it is to be taken seriously, must be accepted. If it is to be taken seriously, then, it is necessary to accept the theory of linguistic acquisition as a positive idea. Otherwise, the theory of linguistic acquisition is a theory, and we must accept the fact that it is a theory, and that it is being used as a theoretical concept. This is a dilemma. We must accept the theory as a positive idea, or else we must reject it as a positive one. The problem is that the theory is being used as a negative idea, and this is not to say that we accept the theory as a positive idea in itself, but that we must accept its use as a negative idea. Thus, the question is, Is it possible to see the idea of an origin as a negative idea, and accept it as such? If so, then we must accept the theory as a negative idea, and not reject it as a positive one.