no no works like a good yes, no yes like a no beyond

how is anyone in this house to find its way back to life if the dreams never cease offering invitations to join their dance?

one has to stay current and while i’m in the current am not current, my only currency the thousand thousand things flowing around. currency is never mine but the totality of the environments i find myself in.

language – so often experienced and believed to be a human commodity, creation. i cannot say with much confidence it is. for language has created us as much if not more than we it, and so to work in language is to enter spaces that question the human even to the point of ignoring it. in this ignorance silence and language mingle, and the knowledge we say emerges from language and its children (thought, technology), once one has mingled with this mingling, seems of a lesser relevance, of too much urgency, of a certainty without weight or lightness.

increasingly i can only talk in society on drugs (though i do not define here drugs (or even on, those prepositions) – the word and concept themselves best seen for now as a configuration of time); otherwise i hardly understand its protocols. drugs remind me, although occasionally reminding me so well of the grammar of those protocols that i must stop conversing, migrating again to solitude just to engage with the force of those grammars. when the grammar, however, doesn’t demand primary attention – drama twit that it is – drugs provide almost an automatic easefulness of words … it’s not as if i speak but society speaks through me what is required.

if a writer spends most of its time in society, it writes about society – its ambitions, scrimmages, critiques; but if it is of the class of writers that doesn’t, what does it write about? it writes about this doesn’t.

society naturally prefers reading about itself rather than the doesn’t, yet the doesn’t somehow still gets written and read (doesn't is vitally present). that the doesn’t does is no negation of negation but a yes inside a yes, society’s matryoshka doll – and so, this way, nested and affirmative, we understand the does.

surrealism revealed the madness within ‘normality,’ disturbing our understanding of ‘sanity.’ (these endless withins) it suggested that hysteria is by no means a pathological symptom but can in every way be considered a supreme form of expression. it spawned the term dry schizophrenia, where a person is able to control its surroundings and yet be ‘crazy’ at the same time.

what has happened to these revealings? where are the refuges of adventure outside of money’s panopticon?

oh … in a yes of no a no of yes, minglings and grammars, doesn’t and dolls, a does, some dry suggestings …