Openworks as earthenware
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo A Gesture Toward Origins
You start anywhere you want to dear, but mind your mannerist
at the beginning, isn't it just obvious
Well, you might want to start at the beginning, but you have to decide (deicide
) where the beginning is, or if there is one. Oh I don't really "know" you just do what you like, and I'll try not to spill
"Can I help you with anything sir?"
Well, if not, you can certainly come along for the ride...
I only take no for a reason to fight you. Remember that and you'll do very well in this class.
Who thinks it
is altogether too faceless of an enterprise?
V Love isn't a fist: love is a fist S
I it's an open palm E
C that when landed on N
I crushes T
U No, maybe love is like an onion M
S How do you mean? E
L Well, it makes you cry N
Y That was unnecessarily (((blockade))) T
Crossing words is like crossing streams... Long way down from here, Paul
(its profound because its risen (and higher, see Plato for answers, always), less profound because its leavened, and not Of The Book
, more or less profound...)
of the book
and from the book
----> ---> --> ->"the tyranny of the line" -> --> ---> ---->
you get to think right here!
ayswin... people living in wonlostbu
h eneveradr i
youwinfor between eplatoisa
o likepyrrh m
owe'resma the lines
Plato is alright. I like the postmodern shit, you know?
(yes, like Pyrrho)
(those kinds of trails)
It's all so true I'm having a hard time
1. (11:12 PM) you do or youre nobody
2. (11:13 PM) i'm nobody
3. (11:13 PM) i like it
4. (11:14 PM) haha
"Les Mots Juste" -Nelson
((Muntz or Ted?)) you decides
hypertexts versus televisions, advances with caution
THE DANGER OF CONTROLLING METAPHOR(s)
well you might just end up confusing what is metaphor
ical and what is 'real' might
that would be a bad idea.
and so forth
Just look what that whole 'property' metaphor did with us, and the nature-as-outside thing...
Wow. That was some bad civic planning right there. Also: arborial metaphors for thought/life: the tree of life... we grow and bifurcate, and grow and bifurcate, and grow and die.
- 1A. Alpha-Numb(err)ic:
- No eternal recurrence of the same. Even THAT is too something, too rigid, too model-theoretic, too based on something I don't want. Explosion at every corner, anti anti anti everything, but not anti really. Not an 'against' as such but an 'against' with participation, against participation, willing cooperation. And definitely nothing to do with a return to something (origins, Being, boing, boring, boeing, flights are too expensive.) Not a line of flight, not a retreat from something to something, not even an aimless retreat, a line of flight extending but not reaching.
- 23(Merz 23):
- More of a bowing out, a decline, a disagreement without conversation, a discussion without 'topic' (yes, yes: place, topos, logicality, alogicality, etc, ran my gamut...) A search string that deletes its results and the record of its occurence. Not even that? Well maybe, maybe everything about above and everything dis-about what above is about.
- 3. No vision: Milton vs. Gloucester:
- A versus for fighting, a verse is 'for' finding. No one is ((''fighting'')) (separate). It's more like a process, a pitting-against. We set up these constructions like so many paper somethings, and we magnify them until our lenses burn out their cor(neas)e. It's beautfiul to watch, and we all want to end up with no eyes. It's academia, chicken-hawk combat chicken, fight fight fight, every ((discursiviteer)) fer 'imself! Blackguards beware. Post-whateverialism will get you and square you off without deigning to drawn and binary logicating you... It's more insidious. It's Marquis de SadeSade and David Lynch. It's Robert Smithson burying you under a ton of boredom, a ton of language, even a "heap of language" if you want to be clever. (We do, we are, very.).
"Linguo" (twice):: Or :: "How Long A Tirade Can Be Drawn Out" (once)
All your meanings are belong to us.
Who's that here?
Sir: Well, just what do you think you're going to do when you run out of oppositions, and you run out of subverting oppositions? Maybe get a desk job? Nothing you said hit anything, you're shooting at stumps son, the forest has been gone for sometime. Maybe you should just collect your things (hat, mug, rubber stamp, bottle of thyme) and move on. Next town, new chances, no hope, feasibility analyses; the full+whole thing repeats itself.
But, Sir: Maybe it's nothing like that, maybe its more about shooting stumps. Maybe the metaphor of about-ness is a dangerous one, just like that arborio-lectic you (was it you? maybe.) talking about once, or in the future, or something. Instead of worrying about all that, why don't we gesture at some things, you know. Maybe we can point at some things, name them, forget the names, and talk a little while.
Parmenides:"There is still left a single story of a way, that it is. On this way there are signs exceedingly many..." (From Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics)
But, But, Captain: I'm still not really sure what either of you are talking about, but adding more and more to the picture (and saying more as many times as your mouth can push: words/saying) might not be what we desire. It might not be... oh I don't know... let's say something like this list: ((Needed, Wanted, Readymade, 'Meaningful)). You gesture, and you bifurcate, but maybe if we just wordspeaktype or maybe if we only just arabesque around a thing, around a things, around maybe these a things...
Oh I just don't know.
Who had the last word?
Yeah they WON
New write-ups at the up to date moment of now:
- (thing) = IIIIIII
- (idea) = IIII
- (person) = II
So, everything is, according to infallible statistics, at the time of this writing, 7 parts materialist (Hegel, Marx, etc.) 4 parts idealist (you, when you were about 19...) and 2 parts personable (that nice chap you met on the bus...)
Woe betide the future.
O my friends, there are no friends.
(Existence is incommensurable with friendship)
(Essentially, existence precedes essence, and friendship is essential for existence, so, essentially, existence=1/friendship)
(Voice of reason: There are no friends only if you seek out to find whether or not their are friends, otherwise, friends-a-plenty... Don't let words wrap your head in a know, don't let friends slip through the fine mesh of theoreticity)
My radical ideas about X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X...
Maybe back to my tirading against the forest. Circling around these trees, doing my hammer-based philosophical exorcisms, dancing my Dionysian/Balinese dramas... cutting away the fat, adding layer upon layer of filo. Plato didn't really work in a pharmacy, he was a baker. Unleavened bread wasn't his specialty, thick flaky pastry, with clean lines, determined edges (from afar) and intricate patterns of dispersal/fragmentation to the 'trained' (nearsighted) eye. Every time you read pharmakon it was filo (philos) fidos that you wanted to see.
"The most beautiful arrangement is a pile of things poured out at random" -Heraclitus
Again with my 'clever' metaphors.
Whenever you first thought that you were going to change something by writing at it, that was when I really got interested, that was when I really started to look at words, but when I got there, my wrist still hurt, and poison still failed to medicate... It's almost the first thing I've learned.
Sarcasm: Help other people.
Cynicism: It's a good thing to do.
Theory only gets you so far. Paraphrase of friend: "Theory is one way of making art, but its not the only way. People did without art theory for a long time, and people still do."
It's the 'same' (relationship of synonymy, Quine's rejection, etc.) way with thinking/philosophy/reading/writing/speaking. Of course 'criticism' and certain sorts of thinking (model-theoretic thinking, lets use as a model for our theoretic discussion of theory...). You can use certain models for thinking, but simply because those models have, at one time (now) become the vogue, or have been exhausted for a few centuries (possibly to the detriment of others...), does not mean that those age-old ways of thinking are the only ones. Thinking substituted with the categories above (symptomatic of what I'm talking about)...
But, I/You say/might say.... all this talking about talking, writing about writing, thinking about thinking, is doomed from the start, doomed to repeat/fall into old categories, doomed to be doomed, predestined to discuss predestination...
What then..smart guy?
"Your heart, felt good, it was dripped in pitch and made of wood"
Well art isn't the answer, and I'm not going to propose one, maybe I don't even think the question is a realistic one, in touch with reality, corresponding to reality. You might all just be sore winners is all. Take your prize and leave please sir, you're making a scene.
"you cannot step in the same river twice" -heraclitus
Here we flow, with the river:
"Indeed, due to the energy and information torrent which passes through the system without interruption, it is henceforth impossible to conceive of it as an isolated-closed system, except, perhaps, in its genotypical form. It is an open system. It should thus be regulated by a thermodynamics of open systems which has been developing over the past ten years and which provides a complex theory for this state of imbalance. In and by this imbalance, it is relatively stable. But here invariance is unique: neither static nor homeostatic, it is homeorrhetic It is a river that flows yet remians stable in the continual collapse of its banks and the irreversible erosion of the mountains around it. One always swims in the same river, one never sits down on the same bank. The fluvial basin is stable in its flux and the passage of its chreodes; as a system open to evaporation, rain, and clouds, it always- but stochastically- brings back the same water. What is slowly destroyed is the solid basin. The fluid is stable; the solid which wears away is unstable- Heraclitus and Parmenides were both right. Hence the notion of homeorrhesis. The living system is homeorrhetic" -Michel Serres
Is an open system less danger
ous? (than what?)
Eco's Open Work.
Delete the psychological and you have your answer, delete the psychological and you deleted what you sought. When did psychology do any work for us (open, closed, retail or manual...)? Psychology as a mish mash, psychology as iron slag piled into the shape of a rocket, a functioning iron slag rocket, fashioned into glue bottles, the glue sold to glue models of rockets together with....
"This little theory is tentative and could be abandoned at any time. Theories like things are also abandoned. That theories are eternal is doubtful. Vanished theories compose the strata of many forgotten books." -Robert Smithson
But "you can't ignore psychology" "you can't ignore sociology" "you can't ignore the real world" "you can't ignore the signifier" "you can't ignore the facts" "you can't ignore the numbers" "you can't ignore the economics" "you can't ignore the political" "you can't ignore the biology"
((My sense of language is that it is matter and not ideas - i.e. 'printed matter.)) -Robert Smithson
The only thing noun verb noun.
"What is an organ
ism? A sheaf of times. What is a living system? A bouquet
of times" Serres
(Serres, because I don't own them.)
works as Open
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo A Heap of Language