The bit below was stuff I was going to, somehow, even if in much modified form, incorporate into a canzone I'm working on.  Now, I know for sure I do not wish to have it other than excised from those draft screens where it until now has resided.  For a bit I thought I could parcel it out in between stanzas, and I do like the idea of twining entire unspun poems in between stanzas of another entire poem, but I don't think the lines below are apt for that brightness either.  Given how I'm keen to get rid of these lines, it's not the least bit shocking that I'm eager to keep them too, to deposit them in a marvelous repository, a blog, a brooks, a Gwendolyn!:


Every time any one spoke, an hour or so later, scars appeared; it’s not

Clear whether this indicates dangerous expression, or if each cicatrix

Is a seam, part of the permanent construction which is the present;

Or does the closest one gets to plausible posit in-between, algebraic

X mitotically divides, constructs, compasses what one does, what one

Hopes for and what happens as perceived by third parties; to do anything,

Even stasis, is to act, to be a force; but force precedes and succeeds

Action, hence crop upon crop of dissatisfaction, and I am so fearlessly

A multifoliate confidence, and equally afraid, so stuck in equilibrium,

Stasis, a kind that goes, goes, seamlessly flows, fabricating fault, quake;

Or should I cheer myself on for what I continue to do well enough

And realize in-between is the present in its very link, ongoing algebra,

That there’s always a gap, a rush one can’t seem to solve; but what if

The action destroys the agent! I fear people will reasonably abandon me.

　

I'm interested--among many, many, other?, dynamics--in ethics and crime (whether legally constituted or not) and especially so aesthetics, as where else is the matter materializing statement so close; I'm interested in their braiding.  Below is a declaration, and espionage, of this braid:

Art is not a crime and the person who claims the crime is art is a criminal; that the criminal is an artist is not exceptional. Those who unveil the mess, reveal its regal clarities--ladies, gentlemen, this is not a tease, it’s stripped to the quick--will engage ethics, make and make unto marl the notion parities can be sown from disparities, make and make till the more there’s more the less massive monstrosities are. Crime hides its error, precisely constitutes terror.

I love the image in the post below!  I love this album!  I am a little confused though, as the album cover--is it the backside?--I love even more I think has Lauper on a street-corner, though this could be faulty memory; mm, I do remember an image where she's in the same outfit, but positioned differently; anyways, everything is happening awesomely.  Does a record cover get any better?  LOL, what a dumb question: the answer is a resounding no! 

600 x 600 · 60 kB · jpeg·Cyndi Lauper – Portrait Of An Artist | corePLATINUM

More On Tropes

I had all these ideas I wanted to write down just like less than a minute ago and I would still write them down if I remembered what they were, what I wish they still are. Now, I’m my usual blank, from which I pull out more blanks, creating seamless chains of anything I doubt anyone has much use for. This is a kind of modesty and this is indisputably egotistical, the way I so thoroughly engage with language in ways few if any will find helpful. I should be optimistic. I should consider the possibility that I may achieve a goodly readership. I should trust that there’s a chance a few readers may find the words I’ve arranged engaging.


OK, now I’m in a mood in which I desire to write prosaic prose, and I’ve told myself I’ve exhausted my point in the prior paragraph. Well, there’s always, this, this going back to a point I make over and over, though hopefully each time with slightly different contours: I distrust the locution “my [this, that, those, any of any].” I don’t believe one can legitimately claim possession, or claim so without stating how one too is possessed. I believe there’s danger to easily believing in ownership. I believe there’s value to trying to build in freedom to what one claims to perceive, so that one may make clear to an interlocutor that you are prepared to be wrong, could currently be wrong.

Like unless it’s questionably legal, I don’t believe anyone besides me should care what I want to write, or rather how I want to write, or rather how marbled to what. Belief is a queer beast. I recognize the “like” opening this paragraph is unnecessary. My counter is this: I believe the “like” engaging because it’s a catalyzing word, a word which encourages followup, which is useful for going on with an essay, which in this instance is more aptly deemed Messay, which is awkward because I consider these sentences me being rather calmly me, almost lucid, almost transparent, almost plain.

Now, it’s time for a “from Blank to [Mark]” to Remark moment. I know I’ve just been pretentious, and more on-point have been being pretentious all along. I’m a fan of pretentious, or at-least a fan of pretentious writing, at-least a fan of pretentious poetry. Yes, pretentious poetry is what I mean. I arrive at value in pretentiousness. For example, the mindmotion Troping engages me. I love the notion substitution serves as an engine, that any dynamic could stand-in, pinchhit, for any other. One reason for this love is this: if dynamics can cross with each other, can engage and re-engage with a diverse field, then ownership becomes less possible. Qualification is necessary. I should have written ownership, in a world viewed as endlessly troping, may become more readily responsibly imagined.

Honestly, and why I’d start such a way, and threaten to diminish totally any credibility for what precedes this bit of this Messaying, is up for grabs and every grasping will somehow point to insensible, I’m not sure what trope means. I remember a friend saying it’s when one thin stands in for another, which seems consonant with substitution, with interchange. But what if he’s not telling any than sadly truncated tail? The term trope, to me, seems always already like a figuration, impossible to pinpoint semantically, but very possible to use in meaningful manners. I could be stupidly celebrating ignorance, or minding my own mind too scrupulously and glossing over the external world as if most significance doesn’t exist there.

My defense, and I’m not sure why I always have to have a defense, I guess it’s a property of prose, is that I’m pretty sure I’m not alone when I state that so much of what, of how, a person knows is based on a network of impressions that are not necessarily retrievable. Am I alone in stating that I usually don’t verify, with some authoritative source, a given concept I’m musing? If I am not, if indeed it is common for knowing to be filtered through memories, glimpses, bursts, and rarely for it to be ordered by complete research, maximal awareness of a Discourse, a mind incapable of perception as other than authoritative accuracy, acuity an impartial spectator can articulate, then there may be relevance to meditating this state. If one attends to the how of knowing, some sense may be intensified as to the what of it.

I understand the necessity of the What-State, but favor How. What strikes me as too much noun. How strikes me as being so much verb. How strikes me as being. Verbs, for me, already connote nouns. Pure action, pure doing, pure capability of doing, the very root of motion, is energy. Energy is a noun. But it’s a body, a matrix of bodies, acting.

Blue is a trope, blue is as a trope, a displacement, but even in mutation blue, maintaining blue, indicating blue is contingent and historically coherent. I am interested in the notion of there being a state of trope, of world as substitutions. The notion trope seems so mobile, so motile, so adequate a concept for knowing within contingency. My prose is awkward and probably pretentious. The words on this page displace my intention. I am not blue about it. There’s no reason, I agree, love can’t be blue, trope can’t be blue, and if one agrees these words display trope and love and blueness despite fully defensible identifying of clinamens then, well, I don’t know how to go on with the subject, or not without subjecting it to tweaking, which is maybe like peeking at a no-no-yes-yes fact, contingent, of life. Blue is big and my silly I, my occludingly self-deprecatory pose, does a go-go grandiose. I am so caught up in believing my prose is cruddy. But I don’t hone it endlessly as with poetry. I wish my natural style would be neutral, transparent, not transparent like a negligee smoking a joint and petting a pony at 34th and Broadway in Manhattan, or elsewhere if the image makes more sense cast at that location’s homonym.


Is and is as, for me, well duh for me, but it’s important to state limits, or is it just sheer redundant when one’s writing in a mode which could easily be termed speculative, embody the difference between knowing, declaring knowledge, and declaring knowledge contingent, subject to the eruptive energies of the present moment.

I wish more people would read this blog. It makes sense few do; not many are likely to have much love for quasi-lyric quasi argumentative musings, mumblings, meows, pleas, cryings out, callings, and this list must stop: it has become back-patting.

What does my fascination with trope signal? Is this my attempt at theorizing the essential, or is the concept that there’s the essential another trope, and substituting for what, and is substituting standing in or is standing in already oriented around an axis, an edifice, incommensurate contingency.

Just very quickly looked at Google-Images of Odilon Redon paintings: mmmmm, deliciousness for the--well, my at-least--eyes!