esotatic

-->

coming soon at doktor jude peer

academia.edu

groundbreaking research on the esotatic

it talks the scripts about the scripts. i talk the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts. so we’re barely able to communicate

it fortunately though in talking about the scripts about the scripts has many more humans to talk with than you do

fortunately?

the scripts about the scripts form the common discourses, divided by tribe into dialects and the dialects either can’t understand each other or fight, and the scripts themselves and the scripts about the scripts about the scripts the political and academic-artistic common discourses respectively, the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts thinking and poetry, already too far removed from the common to be accessible to those who don’t fluently speak the scripts about the scripts about the scripts (or speak fire directly, which is a different matter). the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts though …

unfortunate and fortunate

like all the scripts in all their nests, but with different hues and trapdoors

we each wander in our verdant wastelands making sense to the humans of our scriptiness

or when you’re many rings away from scripts making sense – if at all – perhaps only to scripts and not to humans at all but almost nothing

but what about the scripts themselves

this is where i think it gets interesting – not in the scripts themselves, which, like the scripts about the scripts, are factories of cliché (the difference being that the scripts themselves are the clichés that form the clichés of the clichés) leading one to think that it’s clichés not just all the way down but all the way out. but this isn’t necessarily the case. for the scripts themselves depend on the fire of the energy of action – socially dominant humans simply being an energy that translates fire into cliché and for this they’re rewarded with fame and money and gonads and occasionally deposed – all this what the scripts about the scripts talk about, dominating their imaginations and language. but the further out you go the cliché can’t hold, it begins to break down, and history is the process of adding more rings (another script about the other scripts, another script about the closest script) to maintain distance from the cliché. some who talk the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts also talk the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts and a few also talk scripts about scripts about scripts but once you get that distant from the action the scripts frankly become fairly tedious and it becomes a question whether the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts aren’t primarily anymore scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts but scripts about something else … and what this something else might be – whether it’s possibly the same energy of fire that forms the scripts but with different translation tools and without the action – becomes, in part at least, the script for those who talk the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts. this process of adding rings of scripts, the talking of the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts andor just the scripts with different translation tools, the talking of this andor … all this i call the esotatic

some, even you, would object to this seemingly linear stretching and would rather talk of an enfoldedness of the scripts, holographic and rhizomatic structures, that your so-called esotatic is a false geometry designed primarily to signify yourself because you’ve lost the ability to speak the scripts and thus lost significance

any worthy talker of the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts about the scripts admits this possibility and any other possibility that’s capable of being geometricized. or mapped. and what isn’t? it doesn’t change we think the esotatic or the discourse of and in the esotatic. all these geometries could easily be true and the stretching we’re emphasizing presently just a brief sojourn through certain arrangements that presently present themselves, without any particular commitment to them as system, even as script. and isn’t it partially this lack of commitment, that open mappedness, that are attributes of the esotatic and – we might dare to say – also attributes of fire

opening up of course the old wars of who legislates – the warrior, the poet, or the priest

in today’s terms – the politician, the creator, or the scholar

though wouldn’t we have to add the business mogul and the scientist

different ways to slide the why

and this script – what kind of script is it?

i have no idea. we blab. we blab our meat as it moves through meat

is blabbing scripting? how are blabbing and meat positioned in relation to fire?

we are flows of questions, the script collapsed into the script