Wednesday, April 06, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part X

God as confined space is God as form. For the time being, we are not going to consider whether the form which is God is good form or bad. We are merely (we hope we may apply the adverb “merely” to our activities—we do indeed hope to be confined, refined, humbled, limited, controlled,) going to consider God as form. God as neutral (this only stands to reason: if form may be considered separately from good and bad, and if God is form, God may be considered as neutral…Notice the thousands of steps we’ve already taken… the leaps, the jumps, the pirouettes, our abandonment in ecstasy as we now consider God as neutral (with what little artifice—we believe it has been done with an economy of snippety-snip)(Itwethey demands to know why the neutral is not the stationary). Itwethey, who is one of us and we are one of Itwethey (“it” and “they” being the other parts) has asked us. (Not in so many words, but as the random, the unintentional, and a smorgasbord of other concepts and terms of the probable now determines our actions—um, you know what we are going to gong, mean) we are going to stand before God as form.

Itwethey had wanted us to investigate whether “God is form” is a monstrous or illegitimate copulation, or one designated by absolute authority (in other words, by God!) Did we have it from God that God was form? If we didn’t, what pain or pleasurable pain prompted us to posit Him so? We back-talked to It-they (the other segments of the “Itwethey” complex within which we snuggle and dialogue) about all the decisions and discriminations Itwethey was thus requiring of us, and were heartened to hear Itwethey laugh and snortle, as Itwethey had known, due to our internal linking in a snide solemn cabin interior living limned lined space we couldn’t dismiss as irrelevant, this wild and unruly and wholly improbable (what was the lineage or genealogy of God as form?)

What muck were the whole of us in to now be placed in this predicament? Itwethey wanted to ensure, best Itwethey could, God’s copulations be legitimate. If they had to be between Him and swans (the beautiful), that was okay, because somehow, that was legitimate in beauty (as long as a swan is understood as beautiful and a pecking chicken (poultry—not to be poled or pulled) is understood as something else entirely, or something else otherly.)

Itwethey had hoped to, had aspired to, seduction, but on a random basis. Thereby Love had to be unconfined. Itwethey was worried Love was formal; the worry had, at first, nothing to do with Itwethey’s God. Itwethey wanted Itwethey’s Love to be distinct from Itwethey’s God. That’d do honor to Itwethey’s God, Itwethey thought. Nevertheless, Itwethey requires us to stand before God as form. It is possible—it isn’t an unreasonable request. Pecking chickens aren’t formal. Itwethey knows God isn’t a chicken, but why is chicken-love unconfined? Informal? Itwethey sees it as hellish, but why? Because we can’t imagine any chicken-sensation as not chaff, we mean—-not chafing? But if you look closely at a swan, and imagine (as Itwethey has carefully and in detail (formal and informal detail) imagined: swan-love isn’t all that much less chafing.


Post a Comment

<< Home