I hope/wish that you received/read my liddle Nietszche exposition.
The first, and admittedly beautiful, munication I received from you was[not is!] that economy, in traditional sense, is what defines worth/consequentiality in sentence/work.
Economy is (if I can be so crude: )
Exactly wrong.
Live we in a subtler world (even a subtle one..), economy would, yes, be virtuous:
We don’t.
The nature of our Dasein means that we are ‘trapped’ in [ /stuck with:]
the dry palate, crust palette, of Western male.
As such we exist in a galaxy of potent silences..
Point is that you know this:
Every stroke, drawn even by the most healthy and visceral soul, is cue
for explosion of, not only interpretation but,
Intent.
The most subtle, unassuming stroke,
Explodes [ invokes]
A vast of possibility.
So-called ‘economy’ doesn’t exist in communication –
for ‘communication’ doesn’t exist.
It is myth – that vulgar swooning idea of subtlieae..
Your notion of economy in written media, is wrong.
:To ‘write’ ‘economically’ is either [is, in writ, poly-ther:] to
· be completely ignorant of possibility..
· to deny un-worded silences
· to write enticingly-as-meaningless..
· to ‘capture’ wit at the expence of possibliae.
Economy, and you know, is no quantitative shpiel..
And so, Aryan, snipping your literary intent, is merely ‘cool’, nuthin’ less.. :
Your so-called ‘poems’ are deliberate/unconscious laughters at poetry –
You’ve seen and absorbed the hid pattern:
Your ‘poetry’ [note I cast all ‘poetry’ in the same dubiouse..] is really nothing more than intelligent, self-cock-aware, ‘economy’:
Self-advertising for the [ ]
True economy is sincerity..
The quasi-consciousness of that blade of grass
The POW-regret Einstein felt
The lush language of Friedrich’s weeping round th horse’s neck
The nature of possible..
October 29th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Hi Aryan
I hope/wish that you received/read my liddle Nietszche exposition.
The first, and admittedly beautiful, munication I received from you was[not is!] that economy, in traditional sense, is what defines worth/consequentiality in sentence/work.
Economy is (if I can be so crude: )
Exactly wrong.
Live we in a subtler world (even a subtle one..), economy would, yes, be virtuous:
We don’t.
The nature of our Dasein means that we are ‘trapped’ in [ /stuck with:]
the dry palate, crust palette, of Western male.
As such we exist in a galaxy of potent silences..
Point is that you know this:
Every stroke, drawn even by the most healthy and visceral soul, is cue
for explosion of, not only interpretation but,
Intent.
The most subtle, unassuming stroke,
Explodes [ invokes]
A vast of possibility.
So-called ‘economy’ doesn’t exist in communication –
for ‘communication’ doesn’t exist.
It is myth – that vulgar swooning idea of subtlieae..
Your notion of economy in written media, is wrong.
:To ‘write’ ‘economically’ is either [is, in writ, poly-ther:] to
· be completely ignorant of possibility..
· to deny un-worded silences
· to write enticingly-as-meaningless..
· to ‘capture’ wit at the expence of possibliae.
Economy, and you know, is no quantitative shpiel..
And so, Aryan, snipping your literary intent, is merely ‘cool’, nuthin’ less.. :
Your so-called ‘poems’ are deliberate/unconscious laughters at poetry –
You’ve seen and absorbed the hid pattern:
Your ‘poetry’ [note I cast all ‘poetry’ in the same dubiouse..] is really nothing more than intelligent, self-cock-aware, ‘economy’:
Self-advertising for the [ ]
True economy is sincerity..
The quasi-consciousness of that blade of grass
The POW-regret Einstein felt
The lush language of Friedrich’s weeping round th horse’s neck
The nature of possible..
Anyway.
Aryan.
Thank youz
And thank ya’ll..
That
Mick