Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XVII
Acolytes or apostles of “openness” have some common traits one or two of which Itwethey will now make explicit (for Itwethey does courtly curtly cunilinguilly-pickadially acknowledge an affinity to the “openness” crowd—though Itwethey wishes to distinguish from such crowd, equally also).
There’s a kind of hypersensitivity to hypocrisy, to the point where hypocrisy becomes the new universal and the necessary adjunct of every emotion(emotion now understood as “everything”): love-hypocrisy, door-hypocrisy, window-hypocrisy, regret-hypocrisy, (if it is odd to see “door” or “window” adjoined to hypocrisy, especially in a list of emotions: in “openness” everything becomes an emotion, and tinged with the guilt of hypocrisy: dirt-hypocrisy, earth-hypocrisy,universe-hypocrisy,cosmic-shiva-hypocrisy,jesus-hypocrisy, and so on.)
There’s a willingness to make everything into an emotion (and this is understood as a positive development.) Emotion is always open. (This is the fundamental premise. Please note that the openness crowd hates “foundations”—not on any epistemological basis, but as an affront to “openness”—and yes, Itwethey does understand if you wish to find “openness” in anything, the worst way would be to burrow up and into that thing’s foundation (Itwethey imagines the concrete basement floor of his boyhood home, and someone trying to come in, as Guest, through there—unpleasant, perverse entry that would be!)
“Openness” is understood as attitudinal and volitional: it is with some perfect frame of mind, obtained through “coolness of hip” (from the hip, though veering away from buttock and especially anus, though anus, if you think about it, is close “to the hip” and furthermore anus does open--) “openness” is thought to appertain, by the acolytes or apostles of “openness.” Itwethey will not accuse them of hypocrisy, no.(On the basis of hypocrisy? See how insidious and yet—Itwethey does not deny it—readymade delightful this bad infinite does present itself?) Itwethey wants to know only one thing: why is it Itwethey has never been “welcomed” by them?
There’s a kind of hypersensitivity to hypocrisy, to the point where hypocrisy becomes the new universal and the necessary adjunct of every emotion(emotion now understood as “everything”): love-hypocrisy, door-hypocrisy, window-hypocrisy, regret-hypocrisy, (if it is odd to see “door” or “window” adjoined to hypocrisy, especially in a list of emotions: in “openness” everything becomes an emotion, and tinged with the guilt of hypocrisy: dirt-hypocrisy, earth-hypocrisy,universe-hypocrisy,cosmic-shiva-hypocrisy,jesus-hypocrisy, and so on.)
There’s a willingness to make everything into an emotion (and this is understood as a positive development.) Emotion is always open. (This is the fundamental premise. Please note that the openness crowd hates “foundations”—not on any epistemological basis, but as an affront to “openness”—and yes, Itwethey does understand if you wish to find “openness” in anything, the worst way would be to burrow up and into that thing’s foundation (Itwethey imagines the concrete basement floor of his boyhood home, and someone trying to come in, as Guest, through there—unpleasant, perverse entry that would be!)
“Openness” is understood as attitudinal and volitional: it is with some perfect frame of mind, obtained through “coolness of hip” (from the hip, though veering away from buttock and especially anus, though anus, if you think about it, is close “to the hip” and furthermore anus does open--) “openness” is thought to appertain, by the acolytes or apostles of “openness.” Itwethey will not accuse them of hypocrisy, no.(On the basis of hypocrisy? See how insidious and yet—Itwethey does not deny it—readymade delightful this bad infinite does present itself?) Itwethey wants to know only one thing: why is it Itwethey has never been “welcomed” by them?
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 6:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home