Textual Harassment

James Joyce: major last century
writer.  With Faulkner originated
the  stream of conscious, stream
of unconscious voice in fiction.
 
I"m asking: which is closer to the
reality of thought thinking:  1) your
stream of  unconscious/consciousness:
a constellation of all-over-the-place
rapid transit jump from image to
image, idea to idea, place to place,
thought to thought
 
OR 2):
 
the linear
beginning
middle &
endings of
sequential talk in air,
a sentence on a page?
 
Constellating simultaneously
or  linear, linearity: which best
stands  for You Thinking?  I’m
asking. Just Vote.
 
(Is the distinction clear?)
 
     TEXTUAL HARASSMENT.

(Apologia: why my courses might
could generate for many a frustration
of confusion and indeterminacy, a
stream of un & consciousness that
challenges  convention and our desire
for and addiction to linear
        beginning/middle/& end
              coherence)
 
There are at least 4 TEXTS in my
courses/classrooms that I would like
to indicate, index, point out, for the
sake of expanding our argo-argument
(“the shining”—edifying: building a
shared sense of meanings):
 
1) the assigned texts: short stories,
brief mind-movies, once-upon-a-times
down on paper: dead-on-a-page
always awaiting resurrection.
 
2. the hand-out response/reactions,
emailed and processed frozen Mind-
on-a-Page (MOP) always awaiting
a thaw.
.
3. the circle of readers/responders
textual harrassers collectively  called
US: a Class and CONTEXT. Can it be
said that the CONTEXT awaits
resurrection? Coming to life &
awakening  awareness?
 
Surely in a manner of speaking  we can
say that. (In a manner of speaking we can
say anything, yes? What can NOT be said
in manners of speaking, so to speak?)
 
4, the ENVIRONMENT inside which we
may be said to swim—our learning environment,
the WWC social environment, the psychic and
psychological atmosphere  which envelopes,
surrounds, shapes if not determines our day-to-
daze: our cowboy boots and smoking huts and
 lost Bubba’s and study habits and collective
attitude: I call this our META CONTEXT.
 
Imagine: reading and responding to all 4.
Being savvy and attention efficient to
the professional texts, our amateur texts,
us-as-a-group context and then the meta-
context which is our alma matrix. Factoring
them all (4) to our Fiction-ing, fashioning,
texting, ordering. .
 
Textual Harrassmental Studies and
Leadership Programs—a liberal art,
not to be collapsed, conflated, or confused
with the liberal arts: those majors and minors,
instrumental vocational crafts with their pre-
requisites and sequences and capstones and
measure-mental and assessable goals,
indicators of improvement and grad-
schooled possibilities. Jobs.
 
I’m just pointing this out: the 4 Texts.
I probably will try and say more about
them as time goes on. It’s at the heart
of the confusion of my approach to
FICTION—and re-introducing it for
PLAY.  (For the one’s who don’t walk
away from Omelas, so to speak, in manners
of speaking, but stick around to scape-goat,
blame, explain, interpret, articulate…make
some larger sense.)
 
articulate: (from  I.E.  ar, ars: join, juncture)
 to divide the beast cleanly at the joints with
 a minimum of blood and gristle. a butchers
 term. Related to “art” and “arbitrary,”  
                   “arbitrate.”
 
Of the 4 [professional texts, amateur texts,
context and meta-context (environment)]: 
which counts most?  Absolutely: top of
the pile?  Absolutely, I said. Counts most?
 
(text, textile: from L. ordiri: to weave, to order
—fashion fiction: our facts and factions).

xxxooo, Sam