Thursday, May 05, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXXIX

“Don’t remember any victims who weren’t chaste.” Were the victims chaste because chastened? If they weren’t chastened, were they victims? Victims is chaste is chastened. Does this not lead us to believe Itwethey resents the luxury of “open” nudity? That Itwethey demands its punishment? Resents the luxury of “open” nudity because to Itwethey the luxury of “open” nudity has been denied. (Which it more or less has been. As righteous, holy, beautiful nudity of justice. There’s no doubt Itwethey can become naked, can shed clothing, can parade around in birthday suit, can be “au naturel”, can promenade “in the raw”: what is in doubt is if Itwethey can promenade “in the raw” righteously, holily, homily, unhomely, unheimlich-heimlichly, beautifully as Adam, Eve, and Great God himself, in the cool of the evening, in the garden of Eden.) Itwethey, chastened and chaste, resents the unchastened? Egads!

Were the unchastened victims (there had to have been a time when they had not been chastened, even the most repressive and oppressive modern ideology grants a privilege of innocence to childhood, warranted or not—this is the only viable threshold distinguishing sanity from insanity in any modern ideology—it is tissue thin, regardless) happy and free in their nudity (the nudity of childhood often is voluntary—this isn’t in doubt—and that’s very good, strong evidence of the comfort and joy of nudity over against being clothed) but expelled from that happy privilege by a finger-pointing Jehovah of authority who wanted them shamed from their joy, their privilege, their happiness, their power? Which side is Itwethey really on? If the victims prefer nudity until the finger is pointed at them even if and always ever after they know “we were wrong and guilty then” Itwethey could conclude to honor and sympathize with the victims without, nevertheless, identifying with their chastening. (“You have been made victims with such force as is the force of irreversibility. Your chastity is the chastity of inevitability, of necessity. It will stand and it must stand. And next to it, “open” nudity doesn’t stand up. Worse than that, “open” nudity’s fake standing up relies on the irreversible, inevitable and necessary chastity of the victim. What is this?)

A few preparatory remarks. Itwethey sits in a wilderness (or a reasonable facsimile thereof—probably as good as can be done in the modern (if there is a natural period of the modern and not an ideology of a natural period of the modern) and relies on gusts of randomness, chance, airs of accident, of turbulence at 20,000 feet, error, oopsie-daisie, of delightful privilege to goof, to be dumb, the right to be wrong, and as the trees, the foliage, the sticks, the windfall, the loam, the sand, the lichens, the unlikelihood, the paupers, the Poplars, the injustice, the migraines, the accumulations of all this improbable, (which Itwethey’s probiliscope has, in a remarkable series of images to be exhibited at the Whitney gallery in Manhattan, resolirresolveprobprobprobbbed, next to Richard Avedon’s black and white photos of Itwethey’s home state of BwOaska) Itwethey has nevertheless not resorted to contracts of and for the path, the stoop, anyone’s hope, Love, desire, tomorrow, the sun not setting “in itself”, or prismatics of rainbows, for Hitler.

Institutions are similarly anathema to Itwethey’s conception of wilderness and "bid welcome". Next, we will consider whether Itwethey can, in greeting Guest, eliminate ALL projection, identification, and idealization ( whether Itwethey can or cannot will be used to support the transcendence of nature, or its being thrown out, with the egg shells and coffee grounds.)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home