Rhizome 1/9/15 in which, for the first time (finally!, I explore/exploit the literary potential of the rhizome (writing (or any art for that matter (being a kind of bricolage of rhizomes: It’s all gone wrong! The experiment has gone terribly wrong. Rhizomes (everywhere (within rhizomes) connecting with other rhizomes. I can no longer stop them. They make me write them down. (And what did Twain say about exclamation marks? That they’re like laughing at your own joke? (See what I mean? My mind wanders and I hear voices. Or am I only reading them? Speech? Writing? What was Derrida’s point? I can no longer tell the difference. It’s all so connected…. so complex. * Rhizome 2 (the rhizome within (but equal to (there are no hierarchies in the vast fractal/particle-like rhizomatic complex (the rhizome in which I address a point made by Bergson that there is no intrinsic reason that evolution should have moved from simple forms to complex systems: [Attn: Deborah Gibson, William Tarkington, Ginkgo] In the beginning, there was nothing. But nothing could not stay nothing forever. There must have been some intrinsic element of nothing that had to be something. As Leibniz rightly asks: “Why all this rather than nothing?” And perhaps Sartre gives us an answer in Being and Nothingness when he points out that a pure nothingness would nihilate itself. Hence: his point that nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being like a worm. And we have to give this some consideration given that the very fact (and may the wrath of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (that we are (when we could very well not be (as we are out the thousand other things we could be. And even from an analytic perspective: the very fact (and, once again, may the wrath of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (that a thing is implies that it could not be: the nothingness coiled in the heart of being like a worm. So imagine nothingness suddenly becoming something. Wouldn’t the primary attractor at work be a gravitation from the simplicity of nothingness to the complexity of Being? Or am I too deeply immersed (as if it were a kind of doxa (in the commonly accepted notion of the big bang and an expanding universe? I apologize for the quasi-religious implications of what I am getting at here. (Or am I only apologizing for violating the doxa: the socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues of scientific rationality?) But we have to consider the possibility that we (all perceiving things( are an expression of that nothingness becoming something (the eyes and ears of god: the anthropic principle (and are the main clue as to what it was that drove Bergson’s creative evolution towards complexity. We might even say that this model underlies and defines the process we are engaged in here (the boards (discourse (the rhizomes that are continually moving towards complexity (while seeking to simplify (Frost’s momentary stay against confusion: re- and de-territorialization. It might even explain the literary breakdown above. Anyway: reference: https://facebook/groups/675745095875295/
Posted on: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 20:10:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015