September 5th, 2008
Throughout the slowly decaying cortices of our humble: understanding abounds, knowledge surmises, meaning exists.
Shadows, claimed. Nothing more, still! We create? Still, levied over restlessness, challenged to remove, to “recompose” the, an original. An? True? Still must this not hear left false to the failure of transcription. For, it does did not rise there. It was, were it lay, stayed it mopped up without clarity, cleanliness. That, it has gone for to, realism. There is none, still. The access, entrance, possibility, destroyed through pliability. Left still back once, through creatibility. Back once more, through possibility. There back will always be somewhere more to go, right there forward, still rift the similarity, identically. Then still! Of what interest have we more to? For truly, grammatically, it was erased best, the end will be something only to be spoken of for when or if or past it has arisen then more, back will be for a turning point in the foundation. The expressability through it’s destruction can reach its. So then is attempted, a limitation on the limits? Placed by, the, there is one place that it can cannot. Arisen limits, imposed, created, irrelevant and still irrelevant. Usage lost to users importantly the unavoidable inversion.
October 25th, 2008
Then the discord, concealed so effectively tightly, would see light only through its inherent obscurity.
Is there a deeper truth to this? Is there some “fundamental framework” upon which we are building, out of which our lives – our minds – are created? Suppose the existence of a framework is as chimerical as a blue sky. Between the grimaces of oppressive skyscrapers our blue sky is not more than light shifting spectrum as it moves through humidity in our atmosphere, is not more than water modifying the wavelengths of photons. Ad infinitum we learn our precious sky is farther and farther from our comprehension. And soon that slips away as well, our comprehension, which we had been able to use so fluently to instruct us on our lack of comprehension, fails us. And finally a statement we could comprehend, that we cannot comprehend our lack of comprehension, is lost forever. But the framework, despite our tranquilization by the recursive, does it, hiding from the unlikely afflatus, remain? Would a proof, or a consensus by our world’s comparative literature departments, as to the frameworks impossibility have any effect on its existence or nonexistence?
Would the existence of this superstructure impose rules upon what can be built and the manner in which it can be built? Supposing that the answer to this question is yes, or at the least “maybe”, then there would exist an incentive to search for this truth or these truths, to discover the nature of this framework and investigate its properties so that we may better understand ourselves and our world. I inherently assume that the nature is hidden, that it must be “discovered”. (I additionally assume, or at the least heavily imply, the standard western distinction between being and existence.)
Would a simple existentialist standpoint solve all our problems? It could claim that the truths that need to be “discovered” and the “framework” underlying our world are inventions we have imposed upon the world and upon ourselves. The “deeper truth”, if I dare keep to this terminology, is that there is no deeper truth (or fundamental truth, or ultimate truth). The world is at it appears, the answers we search and yearn for are (1) non-existent or (2) answered by this statement. The second option seems entirely unsatisfying and is problematic in its circularity and that it is facially self-eliminative, yet deeply not. The first option begs the question, if the deeper truth’s non-existence answers the question of what is the deeper truth then the deeper truth does indeed have an existence, that of non-existence. And, quite directly, we are led to the transconsistent or: the same circularity of the second option.
[original with typos removed]
0 comments:
Post a Comment