Detecting design or intent in nature

[Chili]

Well, and I would call it the height in that peace is found in the greater good that is visible in the tradition that surrounds us. It is where a child can be a child and cold can be cold with the unknown known remaining the distant unknown in the freedom that is given to belong without any tension to be. It is like a walk on the beach along the shores of the greater good not visible to us, instead of, and just opposite to a walk on the catwalk were we are on exhibition for everyone to see, including preacher who does not belong to make evil known as an opposite there.

Then, if the sense of belonging suggest that all learning is done from what is prior to nature in us, it will be natures duty to expose the icon in us and we will bow gently when we encounter as if it was a spectator in us until we do. It is from here that, as we journey along the shores of wide waters we find that every bush is a burning bush in the same way, we will finally take off our shoes as one of those too.

A predominant concept is the distinction between within and without.

This is for sure, and orthodox and modern would do that to, as you will show.

But Sartre promotes the use of materialist narrative to modify and read sexual identity.
Foucaultist power relations implies that the task of the writer is social comment. In a sense, if textual desublimation holds, we have to choose between neosemiotic
capitalism and textual discourse. Lyotard’s critique of Foucaultist power relations holds that context is created by communication. Thus, the primary theme of the works
of Rushdie is the role of the participant as writer. The premise of Baudrillardist hyperreality suggests that narrativity is capable of deconstruction, given that Lacan’s essay
on materialist narrative is invalid. But Sontag uses the term ‘textual desublimation’ to denote a submaterial whole.
Derrida uses the term ‘materialist narrative’ to denote the dialectic, and eventually the meaninglessness, of pretextual sexual identity. But Brophy states that the works
of Tarantino are postmodern.
If capitalist rationalism holds, we have to choose between textual desublimation and neotextual capitalist theory. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a Foucaultist power relations that includes language as a totality.

So here we are and I liked your first "but" and am from the old school myself where tradition is the final word in every sentence that we make, and this is true whether we say it or not.

I know all the names that you use to present what I would call 'chaos' in society today, and even think that a simple advertisement on TV is already an infringement on my privacy and will at least try to do just opposite to what they want me to do. But I would normally forget, I mean "who cares," but it is an insult just the same.

This would be a matter if integrity, I suppose, as if I have something to protect that is mine as prior by nature in me, and therefore proceed with caution when I read these moderns, who are modern only as not proven yet.

And that is my point here, where the Law of Excluded Middle including Identity is never greater than the problem that I see, personally here, and take comfort in my ability 'to see' or it would never be mine from the start. There are many good things about this too, in which there is always a challenge before me and never a day without something to do.

So could it be that chaos is opposite to orthodoxy?