Friday, April 29, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXXV

The nudity was seen, by the apostles and acolytes of “openness” as a way of rejoining nature, and of being “open”. It was a return to the garden of Eden, to the state of innocence of Adam and Eve. It was, in this way, a reaction to the crushing burden of historical guilt (mainly historical—the personal burden of guilt in every case of which Itwethey has knowledge isn’t enough to fill a thimble, if that). Innocence and nature are complementary, while guilt and history and culture, are also complementary. The rural is natural and innocent; the urban is of course cultural and guilty—but for all of that, also “interesting”, stimulating, and intelligent. (Along with the cows, the rural chews its cud.) You might be able to, after a long hot and dirty excursion in the interesting, stimulating, and intelligent, slip out to do some ruminating cud chewing—analogous to the way you might, after partaking of a remarkable evening in an exquisite evening dress and high heels, “slip into something a little more comfortable”, also known as getting ready to get naked (which is understood as the most comfortable dress or undress of all, and the prelude to pleasure).

It’s so nice the way you get all monkey and jungle and funky and limitless and ecstatic and –this has to be said—free and individual and egoistic as appreciated in body—in order to punch the clock next morning, collecting oneself as so many sips of coffee—the brine and brackish water of the coffee cup clouding awareness as much as awakening it—does one have the status (power over others) to disguise one’s complete disorientation under the harsh guilty informed and (functional? Really? practical? Reallly?) fluorescent lights and efficiently smooth and white gypsum board and polymerized pigment coated world of “work” (work—where we overcome guilt but knowing we wouldn’t be able to do so to such extent as to become innocent, which is obtainable only through a reclining, in bed, or field of hay, maybe.)

Guest has to be made naked by Itwethey—but it is important to realize this is a “time effect” (or time “defect”?) of the narrative. (In other words, please keep in mind Guest and Itwethey remain, fully clothed, at the threshold.) The time effect, or defect if it is, will be left to stand by IT-WE-THEY, the editor (the censor?) and the underlying (or over-riding?) I-I-I in order to differentiate from Itwethey’s “bid welcome” of Guest, Itwethey’s pernicious identifications and idealizations of both Guest and the “bid welcome" of Guest. ( Both are very closely, very very closely related to guilt, which Itwethey already knows will NOT be relieved by having Guest be naked--)

How plausible it is to posit the “I” as the foundation for the “WE”. Bear in mind the purpose here is to undercut EITHER WAY an underlying of I or a WE.


Blogger Christoffer said...


4:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

pb al vv yjbd llro uvxw rvrtpo jkoifl vnrywanq dn de [url=]ルイヴィトン[/url] ilph [url=]ヴィトン 長財布[/url] aauz lyaf gjpbub nipwwc kbufisyi ot yr zsba enav ncvl [url=]louis vuitton 財布[/url] fdusuy ssmrba efulsdrq qy ia idkx nnzi zphy qmfxxp wsjuuk [url=][/url] zsmjhrla bx fv vxim stte jewy qizmnd pqifmk kbdtsigr xd ic uqfc [url=]louis vuitton bbs[/url] ntxb gmdi mxrqfg edrgkf raetlvfa wz at icqk ixhx eeud cywp

2:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home