RE: Religious and Scientific Cosmologies in the Age of the Human (exponents)

Response to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMM_olgIJCk&feature=relmfu

I misrepresent Matt's words about science & religion as BOTH, being tangentially to Anton's argument, are a form of death denial. I sort of want to threaten the acquired claims of cosmology as engorged lingerings of ontological collusion. The institutionalized treatment of binaries seems to be an internalized process in general. This is how I sense Anton and thouartthat approaching it. Although this is assumptive to a great extent. Where binaries can well be treated throughout themselves via accepting a sleeving, and a width to the sleeve which takes on a tertiary offsetting. Anton wants to collapse all into a singular oneness and call this ontological (lingual) processing, as it is akin to science modelling, a form of nature. If so, then all errors and contradictions, absences, exponents, derivatives, nothings (of nature must be called nature as well) and self denials must come down this same river he calls natural. But this claim is a bias and the outline of this bias is footing into an axiom from which to make all claims. What anton finds mysterious in this universe is entirely, I would imagine, different and more primitive then my own. Where we delimit our basic bias to twist ourselves off as independents of communities is a common activity. So to align oneself with another delimitations is a form of engaging in 'that' type of community. I want to focus on the fact that creating a gravity to one side of binary IS THE problem and not sloshing from the weight of a this side of the binary subsuming the other half. The same treatment of binaries as one collapsing into the other does not eliminate the binary it simply makes an asymetry, exponent or derivative of the binary. This process along with a tertiary sleeving, a dimensional addition, seems to relegate discourse. Anton may claim authorial weight, science may have ostensible weight, but these are still based on auto-insistence. I delimit a separation between language and the world and hold language as a meta element both congruous and incongruous with "the world". To eliminate the aspect of language as metaphor of the world via a collapse of language into bivalence with the world also collapses 'the distinct' into 'the congruous'. This is different then Matt's binary slosh between Polarity and Conversant falls into the conversant (ideology) also collapses science & religion outwardly into the tertiary of 'death denial'. Where Anton puts the onus of death denial strictly onto religious histories. All from the past. Is the past also not made up of stories told from the future of the event being spoken? All from the future! A transparent palimpsest emerges before one's bias or lingual gravities to hold ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCrBsvW9vHw