In comes Elvis, asking where the building is.
For me it is quite obvious we are in the process of closing a circle, and thereby initting a new cycle that we will only recognise fully when it is running and we are all in it. Speaking of avant-garde in this context is simply ridiculous.
There is no battle, you can't scout a future that isn't happening yet. Rhetorics can only be truly understood within the timeplace of their functionality. Avant-garde was pretty good for people living in the first decades of the 20th century. Anyone waving the flag of avant-garde now is just making a fool of herself.
What circle? Which closing? How's that 'initing' anything? Let's get to the what do we have here and now first. What do we have here and now? A silly poet talking on a blog. A stand-alone comedian, pointing his own floodlights at himself in an empty theatre. Aargh, there's that voice again.
Now, speech isn't used to affirm itself or to establish the silly guy talking.
So first of all, amend: this isn't speech, but even if it were, it wouldn't be
used to affirm itself or to establish the silly guy talking.
It does but it wouldn't.
It won't but it does.
Silly guys do silly things, they should care about their laundry instead.
Wittgensteins biggest contribution to philosophy arguebly being the fact that he sent several guys 'n gals off to get a decent job. It takes more energy to undo information than it takes to produce it. Good thinking, Ludwig. Wish you had been there when i needed you.
So, soit, anyway,
who still wants to play the homunculus wrapped in a semi-cyber fold of plastified
RDF tags pretending she is authoring any of it? Every one but
who would indeed still want to play the homunculus wrapped in a semi-cyber fold of plastified RDF tags pretending she is authoring any of it? No one but
U see, after a while now i would only need to say it once in both directions.
You would recognise the ritournelle, the algorhitmic twist inside the rhetoric, that is used a few times down from here, where you would never go (scroll down i mean, which you couldn't if i were to cut and paste this text inside an email for instance, which in fact i'm about to do) if this wasn't interesting, arresting your attentention, forcing you to have a look down. L'ordre des mots.
Archives are for assholes, nobody reads them. Which isn't true, well it is,
but less true than totally true.
Besides the ritournelle remark only is valid if this was a succesful blog, meaning you would have read the previous 'posts' (sic) which it obviously isn't, so you didn't, i mean how could it be, with me that keeps nagging like this all the time.
Lack of solid ground can be hard on anyone, can't it? Have you viewed your google analytics lately? How much of it is coming in on you using the words 'breast', 'bare' and 'Madonna' on one 'page' of your 'writing'?
You see, obscurity has become part of the way we write, we have come to become 1 with the object of our desires. Huh? In what sense is 'not being heard' a part of our desires? Well in the high-literary sense as Pascal Quignard configures it in his reading of Maurice Scève's Délie for instance:
Déchéance au non-discours transparaissait comme un possible de l'ex-discours du tutoiement comme sa qualité d'altération. Insister sur cet horizon de la nomination. Horizon où elle-même ne regarde jamais et cepandant en est l'écho. Comme si le reflet présidait à l'object. La mort, le tremblement, le tracé d'ombre à la tentative de l'autre.
Pascal Quignard on Délie (La parole de la Délie, Mercure de France, 1974, p.64) (transl.:
Falling into non-speech was always a possibillity of the former speech addressing the other as its aspect of alteration. To insist on this horizon of the appointment. Horizon where nomination itself never looks at, yet still it is its echo. As if the reflection presided over the purpose. The death, the tremor, the route of the shadow reaching out to the other.)
So this silly guy talking on his blog, alone and destitute is in fact inscribing herself (let's change sex for a moment , we can, we're not inscribing anything, this is only running code) in the long very long tradition of fictional literary apparatus, tout une histoire de trahir, treason, cheating the reader, cheating ourselfes, cheating the Other as object of our speech that isn't speech but written words pretending to be speech.
So now we play at pretending to write within the fictional cheating process that used to be pretending to speak to the beloved (a completely imaginary friend, like most of anyone's tagged data networks on facebook - i mean surely this is positive and true friendships may indeed come of it but for now it's just rather, let's keep it open, 'unsure'?)
In many respects, our here and now is the point where you have two ends of the paper strip in your hands and you can twist it once and glue one end to the other producing a one-sided story to a double cheat.
What we need to do now is insist on this, because it is in fact the way out. To insist in this story means that once the connection is made (manually - in IT terms this is just another coding process independent of the compiler), sufficient data flow needs to be led (bleed) through it so that it can establish itself as a valid procedure. Vailing, hiding it's procedure-ness by 'working': the point of suspension of disbelief has become the point were the code is compiled and running.
We simply don't need a reader anymore (should you belief your own suspension, which is where you turn silly again)
Obviously, this is where the mock-up part of your Cathedral comes into play: you can do all of this fictional work on your own and fairly cheaply because you're only using mainstream resources (things everbody knows, well-documented routines, all the cliche's of post-modernism for instance). You're only making the twist, so your potential 'customers' can see it should they care to do so.
Selling apps like this can work, cause you'd only need one big fish biting and then everybody would see it jerking away in mid-air and they would all be running to your store to get themselves a rod like yours. Which is where you would simply need to push the copy-paste button. Most selling of apps happens in this way, only it's always the same buyer ( hi there honey egolog!).
You see why mock-ups and web-apps are a much better allegory of describing the wetworks of the creative individual these days, instead of this silly avant-garde thing. We're all just punks and nerds hacking away, some of us will hit the jackpot and run away with the glory, but that's not why we are in the game. It's too darn fun, too.
But i have insited on the primate of procedure over result sufficiently for a while now, perhaps.
If you know what's up, at least be honest about it, and try to enjoy it the way it is, which was a starting point all along, but in investigations like these you need to live through all the bs to get a good grip on it. Which is, again, why you need to establish a primate of process over result, dead objects. Untsoweiter.
Meanwhile, surely, all of our fun is being exploited by processes that are way ahead of us with this, and some of them are getting very serious about the no-more-need-for-any-reader-part.
Which is why perhaps it might not be a bad idea to direct some energy to the few alternative loops we have available instead of fooling ourselves into some quaint being part of the avant-garde cult fucked-up scene of elitist pretention numero uno's we would only be fooling ourselves with.
The choice is yours, it always has been: once you made the connection, there's only one side left to the Moebian Strip. But this determination has its volte-face in the determination to take the this further than the but.
Again. And again. And yet again.