yes, yes, the will and causality or the idea stand in antinomic relation to each other.
mereology and the identity of indiscernibles.
the set is like a set of properties. the properties are elements. whereas the part might be a bit like the other concepts which are contained in this concept of the thing.

and the proper name, the thing about that is that it consumes all, it is singularity, it is the universe even in this universe /of discourse/*. as Liebniz spoke of proper names and how they in some sense contained the entire universe. i believe there is something to this method though others may disagree

*that is to say that it is not a part (and not an element? (is that to say that set theory (as opposed to mereology) assumes elements, atomic facts as it were?)) of any proper superset in its universe. though once again this notion of "proper superset" is reminescent of the identity of indiscernibles.

what was that ashbery title with "[subject] may [infinitive]"
it's still called the infinitive without the "to" right? it better be.
operators are standing by
disturbed or depressed hair
his poetry occasionally occupies the mind