The dynamic of this scenario, is that a threat which isn’t supposed to be a threat is an actual threat. The basis of the threat is that its existence is predicated on its existence being unreal.
An existence which behaves like this – which is based on being unreal – is a non-existence which isn’t based on being real; far more intriguing.
A non-existence is magic. A magic which is therefore rooted in being unreal is a magic which is based on being magic – note the disparity though between this and what I said about Cristina Raines with regards to The Sentinel. The latter is magic being magic, the former are magic from magic.
Paul Heyman and Brock Lesnar are a communication from magic. Magic – presumably situated outside the universe – has deemed it necessary to communicate a version of itself to the universe, so that reality can then understand the point of the communication.
If magic can send itself, this means by default that reality can’t send itself. Truth is the inability to communicate oneself.
The inability to communicate self is the ability to communicate anti – the ability to communicate anti is the inability to communicate. In an earlier article, I discussed the American suburban housewife, and the idea that the American suburban housewife has the ability to not communicate as an ability.
The ability to not communicate as an ability is the ability to communicate as an inability – magic is the ability to communicate, reality is the ability to communicate as a flaw.
So in essence, the difference between reality and magic as represented by Heyman, Lesnar and the American suburban house – with the representation possibly made possible by the Alison Parker from the very end of The Sentinel – is that whereas magic can just do something, reality can only do that same something as a weakness.
Heyman and Lesnar do things. The American suburban housewife can also do things, but only from the perspective that the imitation is corrupt. Switch the paradigm, and the outcome is that reality can’t do something, and magic can destroy the weakness as a power. But is this virtuous?
The ability to end end is the ability to not end – in this scenario, the ability to not end is derivative of just absence. It’s nothing but normal absence that has invoked maintenance, which to me seems like the ideal state of reality (or should I say magic?). With this being the case – the ideal being the censored version of magic – it might be the objective of the universe to undo the paradigm that power has value on the basis that reference has value.
To give magic the freedom to not lecture itself, it’s necessary to undo the value of reference (the American suburban housewife).
It all sounds good and rosy, except for the idea that the value of reference isn’t the same as the mere fact of reference.
The value of reference is the non-communication of value. The non-communication of value is the communication of no value. The communication of no value is the communication of symmetry.
The communication of symmetry is the symmetry of non-communication – the symmetry of non-communication is a difference of communication.
A difference of communication is a non-communication of difference – a difference of non-communication is a symmetry of communication.
The American suburban housewife can beat Paul Heyman, and it can beat Brock Lesnar, because it’s the American suburban housewife and not Heyman and Lesnar which has the ability to be a symmetry of communication – the ability to exist without having to be referenced.