certainly the currency of money can entitle
its holder to safely play with society’s constructed lines between sanity and
madness. as we see, various sectors of
fiscal wealth reveal on lit and comfortable stages the eternal intermarriage of
sanity and madness, providing tents of release for the many who carry the
burden of maintaining separations and the appearance of madness as an external
thing.
language’s role as the currency exchange of
sanity is indisputable. what remains
disputable is the table of contents for the exchange’s manual.
whether madness is inclined toward
fragmentation or unity is a question the self-designated sane tend to avoid in
any extended musing, being themselves inclined to both.
the relations of madness with possibility and
dream are a hardly nascent science. all
we can say in our bare infancy is that god, at least as creator, was mad and
that the subtle and fashioned schizophrenias of sanity depend on the madness of
god, the incoherence of dream, and the possibility of impossibility for the
entirety of their comforts and breath.
little will advance here until the essences of religion (the psychology
of the inhuman) and science (the geometries and mathematics of the senses)
sufficiently converge in yet articulate dialogues.
the recent rise on history’s plane of
wellness, of mental health, of the psychotherapeutic professions,
conglomerates, vast merchandising and retail franchises – and so of madness as
a core industry – indicates nothing like progress in any sense, other than as a
further accumulation of cultural artifacts, and rather may point to an
increasing insecurity and insularity of the species that requires such
industries for its vast protections.
if time is money, it is also madness. the three are united in a manner not
dissimilar to the muses.
as what is routinely called civilization
continues to migrate farther from its dark origins into habitats of eternal and
artificial light, it may be that sanity takes on, culturally, a function
analogous to the alphabet, technologically.
whether earlier warnings about the correlative increasing
prostheticization of the human soul, in relation to the alphabet, are relevant
to sanity is a question perhaps worthy of further practical and theoretical
explorations.
madness is a language family, within it as
many languages as sanity. who would
trace these trees and relations, these syntaxes? who would translate among the many speaking
things? who would know the wind’s dark
mind?
do not say – oh, that barely babbling thing with booze for blood, that savage
indifferent to its killings, that lump locked in the lacunae of itself are mad,
while this executive vice-president of cards, this towering name of music, this
lovely altruistic nun are not. or
say it. but do not say it lightly.
so little along the pathways of evolutionary
diversity has humanity crawled on its hapless and blooded knees. even colour and genitalia, the names or not
of one’s gods, are hardly plural in any bulk and spread, or have simply transferred
old tyrannies to new. we have not even reached
infancy in these organics. but
geometries of mind, heart, soul, language, thought, form – our approach here is
of the non-existent. of the
non-existent, or mad. and the two are
not wholly distinguishable.
for those babbling in the gutters manifest
the coated nonsense of the sane; the sane wear them as an ocean its waves. and the tongues of the eloquent are covered
with blisters of denial and usurpation, and woe to those who hear their words
and do not see their tongues.
for would not the one capable of hearing the
speakings of the sane and the mad equally, applying neither privilege nor
objective, be also the one hardly capable of speaking? so language, sanity’s exchange, does not
trade when madness’ stocks have equal value.
based on what i’ve heard the articulate and
inarticulate, the loquacious and taciturn, say, i am far from convinced of what
is articulate, its source, of any truth in words.
rather than pretending to be mad, i pretend
to be sane? what does this make me? and if the former is malingering, the latter
is …
for
isn’t there always a pretense, and a purchase of that pretense, and often a
forgetting of the pretense and its purchase, for the sake of utility and ease?
