The factual is what makes the impossible not so. Otherwise you could just say that it is a fact that something is impossible, and negate the contents of the package for the sake of recognizing the same cardboard box as among the rest, the same. So then it is a matter of looking inside the box we have not opened. Not negating the plain definition of something by saying it is as plain as cardboard, but rather plain as day, that what is not contains not a whit of fact, yet this does not make it untrue, or there. The content of the context, not the context of the content, is what matters. That is to say, what something means, undisputed, though more be in-between the lines, if you fit what is through the rungs of what before was the extracircumferential, through and into the scheme of a larger connective; despite this lollygagging way of sense at its chaotic base, we still are left with something like ‘what is’ and something like ‘what is not’. Between that, we find the sprout of Ananke, that is, the exigent need to de-layer reality, as if, well … as if it, as it was, was problematic, perhaps even impossible. We enter impossible realms to glean from what conclusions we draw a near-masochistic sense of escape from that which cannot be rectified, and eventually we resign ourselves to the fact, it started as a process of rectification; we lead thoughts somewheres right into the hands of sense’s chaos. Think on that.
Posted on: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 05:30:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015