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 …
