"so it goes in the world."

Ballalough.
Mx. Balley logh, 'lake farm.'    The lake has now disappeared.

from The Place Names of the Isle of Man (with their Origin and History) , by J. J. Kneen [collated volume donated to the University of Aberdeen by William Dey, "who was born and lies buried in Strath Aven"].

                "What story is that, Charlie?
                Is that the story of the little girl who lived down the lane?"

                  --Audrey, Twin Peaks [2017] .

    pollution haze up on the bay
    the want is not regressing



    where you laid your hands down
    this is where I want



    speech impress the day beside
    to do remains recoverable



    was not there a part from losing
    the sad remain considerable



    effort a mound up on which to rest
    to quiet the rays of visions



    a high language sans serviceable fault
    people do not talk this way



          dig it baby come on.
          come on baby dig it.



          what's the use of thunder um
          where lick the hand of like [HUH??]



    it left you & the song became
    to bear the cruel receiving



    a higher language does not soften rocks
    disject from cunt praetor



    deprehendant
    the sunfed



    deprehendant
    circle sunfed



    twelve elevated forms in congress about you
    their voices make you hard.




Moby Dick by Herman Melville. Angels in America by Tony Kushner. 13 Angels Standing Guard 'round the Side of Your Bed by A Silver Mt. Zion. a gay pornographic film from the 1970s. various by Samuel Beckett. apologies owed to all concerned.

There would have to be a door.


To w/stand the telling.


To w/stand the telling.


There would have to be a door.
DO NOT NECESSITITITATITATITATE CASUALTY.
that's causality , boob. ultramaroon!! WET HOGSHAI
R PLUMBER!! brushing buccal mucosa.



 deliberate what process of Actual? ask. th
ere was at that juncture such a difficulty of
say. whoever could be said to have been th
ere. could be said to have witnessed. junke
 d ray dust.

⸙    ⸙    ⸙    ⸙    ⸙    ⸙


[15/11/22.
the author knows much less, now.]

You are the bearer of an Autistic Mind . You are in a difficult mood . You are in a room, there are other people in this room. Your mood influences your experience. Their mood begins to relate to your own. You notice things. They might not be there. Their mood becomes your own. It might not be their mood. How you feel becomes how they feel. To you. If this a common experience? Or the symptom of an ego subject to internal hostility? When struggling to articulate, every word becomes a word separate from the words surrounding it. When considering words, the words are considered one-at-a-time. This is obvious. Don’t overthink it . The saying of it becomes easier when one does not think about the saying of it. But such lack of thought increases the possibility of error. Or. Then we get into the idea of an influence influencing without awareness of the presence of the influence or its influencing of action of speech. Speech as action &c &c. You are speaking and so you are speaking. By having spoken a word you have brought that word into being. Being. The word exists where it did not exist before. The word existed but it did not exist. This becomes another means of perception. The truth value of the becoming remains an indifferent reality. That it has become is sufficient. The mechanics are ignored. This is a commonality of process. Sub specie aeternitatis as some vague hold. Though the vagueness counteracts the Sub specie aeternitatis-state. Though a Lingual Unity holds, recedes, withdraws entirely.
Here the attempt-at-articulation is becoming a plea. The plea as a simple notion, but hard to do. Do, to perform. To ask for help. What help is needed? By asking by asking. Can there be an absolute specificity in a plea? If a plea holds specificity does it continue to be a plea? I am speaking externally from the basis of the legal definition-and-imagined-application. Though perhaps the legal application is applicable. I am reliably informed that repetition makes things easier. Who informed me? A plea implies need.
The need to articulate need is a common problem that the Language presents. Is this true? Let us imagine that it is. Is Language an automatic paraphrase? Is the phrase paraphrase alone? We speak of getting-to-the-heart-of-the-matter, but that is itself a description of getting to the desired state rather than the desired state itself. It is an expression of hope. Or. It can be applied as a descriptive value. To describe for instance a textwork that gets-to-the-heart-of-the-matter. But the textwork is an abstraction. It is not real because it is not happening. Even if report this holds. What did that last sentence mean? We do not treat our conversations as quote-sources. Maybe some do. If we are subject to a means of articulation that relies upon abstraction, do we then come to believe that what we feel is an abstraction also?
Language may well emerge with the aid of innate structures of learning and development. And yet it does not provide any other association with the innate. What do I mean by this? Language-learning may well be innate, but the language itself does not access the innate. Thought is taught to cohere with language, but the emotional complexity of thought does not often map itself onto language of coherent complexity -- if attempts at explaining complex thought are linguistically-complex, often they are of a cul-de-sac complexity -- we are led in to go nowhere, and the only means of escape is returning to the prior point-of-entry. What do I mean by this? How can a process that is innate fail to be innate? How can the innate not be innate? Can we seriously say, and then from there seriously believe, that language forms any part of consciousness? We speak of conscious thought, and conscious thought seems to us in part to represent itself with words in the head -- but are those words thoughts, or merely their abstraction? I say ‘we’ in a presumptuous way. Some are ‘visual thinkers’. Am I a visual thinker? Are you? I cannot describe visual thoughts with accuracy, it would seem -- I could draw a picture, but even if I hold great technical skill the picture will not be the thought. It will be the abstraction or the development of the thought, and if the former it will almost always become the latter simply due to the fact that temporality has happened to happen. I could describe the process of visual thought through talking or writing about it, but that would seem to defeat the point. Children are taught mathematical problems at times with images. Squares the same number as the numbers in the problem, but only ever squares. You see ‘4’ squares and know-or-learn that there are ‘4’ squares without ever seeing the number ‘4’, or the word-for-the-number ‘four’. Another process of learning is to be invited to think visually through words in order to perceive the correct solution to a number problem -- Jane has two apples, Pete has five rocks, problem to solution, they’re not numbers they’re a number of apples, a rock is a thing. The Image has a purity of knowing. Language is being gamed in order to resort the mind back to Image.
The problem can be the inability to consider whether or not people ask the same questions that you ask. Though by being a person asking a question, you have proved that it is possible for a person to ask such a question. The problem then becomes an other. Does the question need to be asked? or Does the question need to be answered? How long does the answer need to be? Is this a learning-process? Will it institute change? Do you wish to change yourself or your situation alone? What would such a change lead to? Would it actually be a change, or the idea of change? Can you locate a distinction-value between the change the idea of the change? A change is felt, or a change is. The constant states that enable us to live require constant change in order to remain constant. Atmospheric conditions, all that.
It would be easier perhaps to believe that change can be spoken into being. Would it? The magic-word, the invocation. This would lead to every spoken word being something that changes everything. No it wouldn’t. Because. That is already the case. Every spoken word is something that changes everything. It was spoken where before it was not spoken. This is not unique to language, it can be applied to any all action/state. To thought? Is thought an action/state? Perhaps I shouldn’t ask that. An action is a realtime impermanent. A state is always permanent. No it isn’t. Or. The states are permanent because they once were. Then the change occurs. This makes sense. If there is a recirculation, it is subject to change as it is something that has not happened before. Even if it has happened before, as it is a recirculation. This makes sense. If we are to perceive what is happening as what is happening, we are to perceive what is happening as what is happening. How profound. But it is not a matter of perception. Isn’t it? No. It is a matter of experience, of experiencing. We find ourselves living even when we do not feel as though we are living. Or. We find ourselves living even when we do not feel like living. Whatever it means to feel like living. Whatever it is living is like. It is like itself. Fortunately or unfortunately [depend|e/a|nt on the one experiencing], it is not subject to comparisons. Beyond itself, I mean. It can be compared with itself, but to multiply 1 by 1 will lead to the starting result. Or. Dragging numbers into a language-game would seem to be an act of cruelty. One of Yves Klein’s Blues. One of his Big Blues, unbroken plane International Klein Blue. Blue irregular blue square staring out blue. No. Being stared at. Or staring out. Self-evidence as total thing. Or. From numbers to colours, the situation is worsening. IKB 79, Jarman’s Blue. Why did I bring this up? Why did I invoke a colour through the Language? I have done this before. What did I expect to happen? Staring out at the blue canvas, at the canvas covered in the blue. Attempting to locate brushstrokes, errors, evidence that a human body has interacted with the canvas, evidence that a body has interacted with the canvas, evidence of a brush of a surface of some aspect contact data. The colour overwhelming the sight, the inability to distinguish the colour from its components when the colour is its components. If there is a brushstroke error it is the same colour as that which surrounds it. The error becoming indistinguishable. If the light hits it at the correct angle perhaps the topological model will aid. But if there is a glass separative, the light will lead only to the light response. The colour remains uninterrupted the components indistinguishable. Perhaps there are no errors. Is this possible?

It is possible that I believe none of this. I have written it down. But it is actually possible to write something down without believing in some aspect of that which you have written down, if only that one is believing in the inherent components of the expression itself? Is it possible to believe both that Language is only there to signpost the unconscious whilst also believing the unconscious not to be something autonomous outside-of-us? We perform actions without knowing we have performed them. Some of us do. Are they choosing to behave in such a way? To say that would be cruel. Is choice too limited a word, then? Can one perform an action as oneself without oneself knowing and still fully attribute that action to oneself? Where does something stop being ‘us’?

SO IT GOES IN THE WORLD.

return Home?