-->
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
