Dialecticians, and Colleagues Across
the Curriculum)
(Courses w/o Borders Series),
I’m trying to make the familiar strange;
how uncanny that we can drop mind on
a page—freeze it and revive any time.
A form of time-travel. Continuity.
Think of where MIND might be
said to be located.
No where.
Wonder how one can be beside
oneself, as if out of one’s mind
paranoetic..
Manners of speaking, yes?
Ways we Talk.
Which is why to Talk About the ways
we talk is like a quantum leap kind of a
deal: meta-psychological, discrete jump.
A discontinuity and incommensurate: the
talk on the one hand, and the talk about
how we talk on the other.
A liberal art.
Trickster is an in-betweener notion.
Not a This or a That—but the ratios
and relationship BETWEEN.
Get it?
It's a tricky notion to GET because if you
GET it, (grasp, hold) then it's no longer the
in-betweener, mediating, relay, rationalizing
ratio relationship going on, because you've
NOUN-ed it, yes, and nailed it down.
Get IT?
X) If you say, “yes,” then you haven't.
If you say “no,” then you have.
Of course the opposite is also true:
Z) If you say “yes,” ok, you have it.
If you say “no”
tough noogies
Now, if you can negotiate the territory in
between the truth of X and the truth of Z—
without doing damage to either, you are a
Practicing Trickster and a Dialectician, too.
Congratulations.
No, I'm not patronizing.
And this is no woo-woo nu age Zen
esoteric smoke & mirrors going on either.
Very practical.
Trickster/Dialectic is an uncanny notion.
It mediates Background/Figure relationship,
Whole/Part relationship, Noun/ Verb relationship,
nailing it down & holding on / letting it go &
throwing it away relationship. Consuming &
Composing relationship, Love & Hate
(attraction/repulsion) relationship,
Good & Evil relationship.
Etc.
Thank god for the trickster-mediator, our
relationship-Realtor, separator- connector,
opposition-regulator, paradoxological
paramater-hopper who saves us from our
double-binds, damned binary dualities,
rocks and hard places, devilish details
and deep blues sees. As it were.
In manners of speaking.
Get IT?
X) Putting-IT-in-Play
and
Z) Get-Serious-for-crying-out-loud!
Y) Relationship(between x&y)
See what I'm saying?
(It's always—whatever else IT is—a
language problem: a problem within
the limits of representation and yet not
being stymied by limits, but not ignoring
them either: putting them in play. .)
If you say I’ve Got It
You don’t.
If you say I Don’t Have it.
You don’t.
Do you think this is just play with words?
Manners of manners of speaking? Granted,.
this has nothing to do with
transgender and domestic violence, super
bowl, snow days and the conditions of roads
between here and
On another level all together and not to be
conflated, collapsed, or confused without
confusion. . .
This here kind of talk is prior,
primary, pre-ludic Call it
X) Deep Eco Logic, say, as opposed to
Z) Surface user/abuser Logic.
And Y – the always emerging relationship
between deep and surface is what I’m trying
to conjure, indicate—put in play.
Something like that. Play
and be Played.
IT, of course.
Shouldn’t have to spell it out.
xxxooo, Sam (always for the sake of argument: punch
reply or better: reply-to-all to sustain any of this)
No comments:
Post a Comment