Rigor and aphorisms

I can't imagine a man worrying about these questions if he is on the road . His moral health and fitness are not troubled. I myself would not pay attention to these questions of the sitters and the kept.

So I apologize in embarrassment to Moraline for his having to see this come about. I am back to old projects because I am sitting and trying to create a moral defense against others who sit (and the others who craft to trap me in 'maternal' projects) in my current ecosystem.

Who thinks they have a hold on rigor? Those who gamble in the high-risk duels of phenomenological ontology, as in those who write books subtitled "An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology?" Or the 'system builders?' How about the clever crafters of aphorisms?

We begin with this cheapened afterbirth of communication in the first place--language. Good old Moraline has already taught us that hunting and kettle bells are where the clarity is.

The system builder might get off the ground on the wrong foot. No matter how many pages he churns out, how many connections he makes, no matter the scope of his work--be it broad or specific--he might lack rigor due to poor technique, a bad feel for the subject matter, or a misunderstanding of his subject matter or himself.

What about the phenomenologist? Can't he lack rigor for all the same reasons as the system builder?

Can phenomenology be accomplished with a variety of techniques?

As if any of these questions matter. I already know what my ethics is and that the problem is that I do not have my own project, I sit too much, and that I must stay free from women who see the objectification of men as a pretty decent ethics. I say 'women' clearly without any rigor.

Moraline has asked I get back to simple description of the experience. It is to these experiences I turn next.