Karen Eliot

1. Why does Karen steal?

Karen steals only to allay her mortal terror of having nothing left to give. Her economy is that of the potlatch, she lives in opposition to the persistent rationalist fantasy of conservation, of consistency, of the homogeneous. She understands that nature knows only excess, waste and sacrifice.

2. Who is Karen Eliot?

Karen is the last (first) individual in a world which offers "individuality" only in a collective context. The "true self" must be collapsed in order to open. It is turned inside-out.

3. The Neoist realm

In a Neoist view, we realize through contemplation that the existence of anything is defined for us through the relations of equivalence, this is possible because the idea of this manifestation of unity is potential in our consciousness. For the latter world is a particular instance of the universal consciousness, which is one. Our dreams would then seem whole and unified, however this is not collision of things in space, but a dissimilar row of each independent phenomenon.

Neoism is not possible because equivalence is equal to negation: Reality can and must exist through opposition to what is assumed to be life simultaneous with the refusal of death. If differentiation, through opposition and friction, does not conceive of the spatial as lasting in time, that is to say, for the moment we define ourselves as the pinnacle of this opposition. Since each state is irreducible, the mere act of giving it a name implies falsification.

As a result of the 'transformation' of the 'human condition' from the determinance of survival to the non-referentiality of enforced leisure and contemplation, life is the space in which a social consciousness of social consciousness is developing, and has become increasingly abstracted, textual. In this text we are all simultaneously authors and characters, consequently the formation of a self-defining limit. The plot is determined not by the multiple authors, but by the editors who choose and reject our lives, our textual fragments, past and future.

Neoism in the age of artificiality: the resulting text is huge, complex and distracting to a degree which prevents us from realizing that we are its authors. The sign of this limit is the realization that this distraction is the mechanism, it can only be extended to fields of activity which contain itself. The limit is not impotence, it is motion which distends the horror of the present into the future indefinitely.