Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XVIII

To continue on with the examination of the differences between Itwethey’s position and that of the acolytes and apostles of “openness” we need some sense of the difference between the necessity of selection and the necessity to not select. “Openness” needs to be understood—as far as this critique of it by Itwethey, who is not intentionally setting up a straw man—as implying or entailing or “thinking it is a really good idea” to never select—to never say or think, “I want this and not that.”

Because, if we say or think, “We want this and not that” whatever the “that” was, we are not open to it. We are, just that far, not open. Obviously the acolytes and apostles of “openness” cannot in any way cop to some space of exclusion of openness, that wouldn’t be open. While at the same time being the cop of all hypocrisy—it is all noble ambition, and a tough ideal, and Itwethey is respectful. Itwethey will give the devil its due, or Itwethey die, or cast Itwethey’s die.

Itwethey, leaping ahead, sees a very interesting affinity now between the acolytes and apostles of “openness”, and the acolytes and apostles of “plasma-ism” as something Itwethey will wish to explore, as Itwethey is very near these camps, and, as inventor of the probiliscope, and the fervent planner and preparer of welcomes of Guests thought to be l’autre, Itwethey admires the admixtures of chaos and chance and energy (ah! Energy is motion and change and chance! Itwethey will explore these terrains of AND (which are specific and enumerated and local)) Itwethey hopes to leave aside the obvious inaccuracies of metaphor already suggesting themselves, as is so in hot water bath Itwethey has left in order to (can you believe it) smoke?

Any abode not hastily constructed can’t be satisfying to the comfort of bones or flab.