kagablog

The whirling dervishes: What if word is wrong?
 
 
I will once have a dream. In this dream I am a child sitting opposite God.
We are having a conversation. At least, he’s trying. In this dream we are sitting on grass, it’s a natural environment, but somewhat slanted toward the idea of garden. We are seated in nature but there’s something deliberate about it, neat, an accent of flowers, a polite representation of weeds here and there. God has been speaking since before I arrived, addressing me. He has been speaking for a long time, even for God. I haven’t really made eye-contact but his image is clear – impeccably flowing white beard, neat white robe, relaxed posture, calm glint in blue eyes. He has been speaking forever in his calmity. I am absorbed in the adventure of a lone ant traipsing the green blades, willing an epic of insectile threats into its journey. Knowing its survival. I look up at God. I say: “I am growing”.
The silence is omniscient, volatile. I cut to
 
The thing with Art is, its thing, is the deliberate, subjective distortion of grammar. All Art is critical. Is revolt, hormonal, is the mad energy tragic epiphany-of-self.
 
Forced into context the Artist has none to express self with but the   strategic corrupting of medium-of-context. The Artist can never communicate self (its only goal), can but suggest its pattern in negative-space: the Artist communicates self in the suggestion of shadows – in the spaces afforded by the toppling of structures.
 
 
Chapter one: Word beyond Grammar.
 
 
The suggestion that a word ‘in-itself’ can be wrong, its consequentiality riddled by some secret disease, is very troubling.
Accusing anything fundamental to, or directly representative of language, of falsehood or deceit is tantamount to questioning the integrity, the fundamental health, of the human psychology.
 
This is no small charge.
 
Over the course of the last 150 yrs intellectual developments have honed in on the probla of Objectivity. Have increasingly, and from a disparity of disciplines flexing from arts to sciences, revealed its subtle, cancerous malice.
Born innocently, in the genius of Socrates, Objectivity, the Profound Error, has cast sinister the entire evolution of Western man.
 
In essence Objectivity is the philosophy of anti-life, the static.
Its model-language, that perfect tongue mathematics, is nothing other than a vocabulary of tautology, with its grammar of mirrors. All of mathematics, and the very premise of Objectivity, rests on the desperate legend of ‘1′.
But ‘1′ does not exist outside of mind, even there its extinction is veiled only by desperation. In the natural world there is only presence and tension (:the relationness of presence): pattern is defined in its perpetual interrelating with all. Even in the exactitude of technology any physical ‘unit’ is subject to the natural flux energy which results in the shifting of its atomic structure a la’ deterioration and appropriation of externa.
But these are examples presented in the view of Objectivity – within the frame of categorical consequentiality.
 
No pattern exists outside of perception, outside of the valuating energy of ego (that original, that ‘I’ which ‘1′ self-confoundingly attempted to represent):
What this means is that the scope and meaning of any given pattern exists only within, and is determined by, perception, which inevitably involves the bias of subject/ego. The self is organic, at once shifting and self-centred, and so adapts consequentiality to its own shifting self-bias.
Meaning, the shape of pattern, inevitably communicates the health of ‘I’, the nature of its interrelating with the all.
 
If language, through its ethics-of-conduct (grammar), and anatomy (words), is a formal representation (and it is.) of man’s valuation of self and environments, it should in the very least be suggestive of the essence of man: organic and highly subjective. Which it isn’t, not in its formality.
 
But then, as we know, ‘language’ isn’t language: ‘language’ is the Objective’s take on language. Language is most resonant in the expanse spaciae surrounding what neat and conscientious people refer to as ‘language’. The arch of her suppleness before the exlamation – that is language! The contours of her scent..; and beyond, before, withinwardout such obvious glints of linguistic – the incontingent smell of some forgotten fruit accompanying the mouthful of pasta; the dismembering intimacy with anatomical Self experienced when investigating the future bruise; the blind orgasm of listening to a composition of genius for the first time, its violent dimensions absorbed into future recollections and revisitations; the exaggerate extent of shape in every galaxy (:moment) of childhood; the blaring alienation of reciting the word ‘cat’ out of language – into specific and clipped meaningless of anterior-tongue-fore-palatial motion; any given breath, any taken breath
 
Is language.
 
Reciprocity – the sole argument for democratic language, formal, safe, mute, perfect road-worthy language – has never wanted to imply, as it formally does, symmetry. Essence is not exact, as the Objective wants:
Communication (which is language [Reality is language but we’ll leave that for not-quite-yet]), in specie-specific sense, is the interrelation of subjective experience – we communicate to expand finite self.
Taking essence (communion) for granted, language exists for the extension of given-self’s experience through communion with other self-experience.
 
‘Word’, in its contrivance of being itself and no more know less, is wrong.
Words are moments-for-launch. Approach meaning, validity, only in contexts that nudge them from their official meaning – through syntactic affection or the intimate idiosyncratic of code growing between intimates.
 
The question of point again.
What is my point?
We have not touched, not directly, on the issue of sex.
It all comes down to sex really, everything. Holy tension.
 
To summarise:
 
*Western man has betrayed the gift word, has betrayed its future/life:
  Language.
 
*Western man is ripe for friendly inquisition, aka conversation with Ontos.
 
*The self-deceit (that fundamental blasphemy:), Western ideology, is not a      
  question of gender so much as of un-gender:
  In as much as the feminine pattern has been silenced, the masculine pattern
  has been (neatly, conscientiously) super-castrated. Castration should only     
  be effected by female – exemplify hatred with its complex heart
  (:its speak of love betrayed..).
  It is right (in its vast bount colour of Wrong!) that man has castrated man:
  a vulgrast symptom of disease.
 
:::::::
 
 
There is much that needs to be said.
 
Much important perhaps that all which is ’said’ should necessarily be sensual.. sense-ous –
 
There is none but physicality.
The most profoundly abstract idea is sensual.
Embrace the repressed sensual of abstract abstraction
:
 
sensation.
 
[this take two of take one: the above and its predecessor are aimed at conversation. Structured in linear - that is, as casual munication, minus polish and pro quiver intent -   this awkward chronology-of-word exists only to be read in passing and commented/no-commented upon..
in sly it exists to explode silence/style into gwvuavering schpottles of raging comment/vicious dismissal]
 
there is only
 
Chapter two:
 
“The will to a system is a lack of integrity ”
or:
 
why Nietzsche knew what we can’t phonetisize..
 
****************
 
love is the sincerity of anticipation
 
much ciao
 
Mick