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.

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXXIV

The narrative of Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, in its entirety:

1. Itwethey waits, in solitude and semi-darkness, in contemplation and preparation, for Guest;

2. Guest, accidentally (or randomly), happens down forest path;

3. Guest happens up Itwethey’s stoop;

4. Guest happens to be greeted by Itwethey;

5. Guest and Itwethey are squeezed together, though oscillating in both space and time, on Itwethey’s threshold.

The critique of “openness”, the use of the probiliscope, descriptions of BwOaska-- support the narrative, and do not form a separate narrative, or “themes,” or worse, "rhizomes."

The extraneous and unusual, grotesque and arabesque, the diversions and wanderings, are to be understood as “time effects”, mainly occurring during the oscillations at Itwethey’s threshold.

If the narrative ends with a "happily ever after", this must be understood as one among many, "time effects."

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXXIII

It’s kind of troubling, but apparently we are going to need to make a theme of Guest being naked, being made to be naked, and gathering firewood naked, being made to gather firewood naked—by Itwethey. Itwethey had no intention of such a thing—the idea was to provide hospitality to Guest, as a consideration to Guest, so that Guest would come into cabin and be completed by all that happened thereafter—all thereafter being understood as satisfaction, comfort, ease, idleness? Itwethey does know of his need, after a certain stretch of laziness, of the comfort and ease of getting up and going out and fetching some firewood, but in anticipation of what Guest would like, this didn’t occur. Of course, Itwethey never fetched firewood while naked, and nor did Itwethey look so fetching while fetching. The nakedness—Itwethey can’t reconcile that quite yet, though Guest really is “comfortable” with it, maybe is enjoying it, even the display of it—Itwethey you see, having sat in skull-like cabin, dark and dingy as a self-created dungeon, isn’t able to “play it cool” no matter how much Itwethey would if Itwethey could.

Ah, we see now: the degree to which Itwethey’s elaborate plans for consideration and hospitality are exposed as Itwethey’s inconsideration. Nope. We don’t see this quite yet. Not quite yet. (Of course, we are working to this end. We want to find a way to plan (which we see as an essential activity) which is not a means to dominate or forestall “the new” or “the spontaneous”. We want to make a dictionary which dictates nothing at all—acting as a tool and nothing more. Wiktionary? Itwethey has no reason to rule that out, as of yet, and maybe won’t. How quickly can Wiktionary capture and stabilize Itwethey’s portmanteau words?)

A few more things about Guest: a description of the legs—long but muscular, something like Tina Turner’s—athletic, not reduced to the geometry of bone, but exhibiting the geochronal and architectonic of disruption power which asks metry to meat out a little, or get out, or get the meter kicked out of it (interestingly, Itwethey was kicked hard by girls many times, but by women, never. The legs of women were progressively weaker than those of girls, and maybe the inclination to kick at Itwethey’s invasions weaker too. Inclination and motivation. Guest’s legs are kickers to be reckoned with. Itwethey’s inclination and motivation to get kicked by them is zero. Let it be known.)

Itwethey only knows about the strength of Guest’s legs because Guest is naked before Itwethey. Guest is naked before Itwethey because Guest is somehow welcomed by Itwethey—has accepted the welcome of Itwethey. All to the good. However, it does mean the story has gotten ahead of itself. Yes—once again the story has been allowed to get ahead of itself.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXXII

Oh yes’m, hideous coffee, replete with antireanretireireire: you recognize this repetition.

Oh yes’m, hideous tea, replete with a wallow in water, an awaiting in water, a shallow swallow in wallowing water, replete with swallow, of shallow Shiloh of Shoah of forgotten Chaos of water.

Oh, yes’m, hidgeous prodigious brought to a boil, replete with wank with wallow with wanking wallow want no mallow nor marrow, tomorrow? Replete with tomahawk tomorrow sorrow swallow Chaos of water in smarm short of a Shiloh of tomorrow cut off from

Oh, yes’m, fishes do swim in shallow swallow of morrow on tomogram tomahawk squawk squint squaint quaint hideous coffee, hideous tea, replete with a wallow in water, in coffee, in scream, in tea, replete with swallow of Shiloh of Shoah of Chaos mistaken for forgotten, in water.

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXXI

Guest was holding some firewood. Itwethey hadn’t the slightest understanding of how this has transpired. There was almost always a need for firewood—Itwethey was the first to know this. During the winter time, it was Itwethey’s obsessive and yet casual concern (Itwethey, lazy, concerned with the abstract, little peepee most of the time wired to fantasy, not reality) that firewood be gathered and readily available if in case of frigidity moving in and causing suffering and paralysis.

Guest: let us attempt to describe her. Just as a general frame, think of both Lauren Bacall and Charlotte Rampling. Bacall or Rampling: Deleuze or Bogart. (Interesting, this stinking software corrects me on Deleuze, but recognizes Bogart. Itwethey concludes Bogart is much more establishment (bourgeois) than Deleuze, but why?) What kind of beauty is that? Itwethey assumes this is French avant-garde, in part because of its willingness to get naked and enjoy ( bathing. Bath, get yourself clean, means getting naked, even though and not in spite of, the fact that getting yourself clean is all about the sacred, whereas being naked is all about the “profane”. The propane, a gas, combustible, as we shall see Guest is combustible—and must be combusted—by Itwethey. Itwethey will put Guest in pipe and smoke, (NB: Itwethey meant to say “smoek” but again correcting software forced Itwethey to type the more conventional—the entirely conventional—smoke—(not that that is in any way unbeautiful or unbeautific)).

Of course Guest has perfect breasts. Hair is wonderful, as are eyes. There is something almond in the eyes. The shape? No, the content. The content of the eyes? Almondine? Or beige? Beige bath. Itwethey stands before bath and in the eyes of Guest all the reflected colors of Itwethey are there, all Itwethey wants to see—let there be no doubt. Itwethey wishes for the form of almondine.

Guest is too healthy to be beautiful. Little peepee is entirely unobservant (there is no obserject in these genitizing eyes). A round of fire, a sound of fife, a squire of the square, a pound of puppy pipe put in to “smoek” to realize to dwell upon to photograph, to ignite, to squarignite, to rarify, to volatilize, to spiritualize, as when the volatile molecules of smell go beyond the nose, and into any space: fifspirsqbeetnestin.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXX

An end to “predator-prey” within “guest-host” means an elimination of nature (the natural, or savage, pre-historical, or pre-civilization), in the civilized….Easier said than done. (Predator-prey as at the heart of nature; guest-host at the heart of culture and we hope for the sake of civilization, at the heart of civilization), but still, “Easier said than done.” (Nevertheless a noble project for the Enlightenment wreckers, a crew with an assortment of mechanisms for dismantling the undainty (as their masters have told them it is) threatening plural joy nevertheless delicate…In LOVE.

What’s worse is that as said above, the saying isn’t that satisfactory because what Itwethey wants is a perfectly planned, or considerate treatment of Guest which “feels good” (not stiff or rigid—stiff and rigid never feels good, says those who are enlightened) (planned informality?), a “wild” Guest-host, which in a way it is said above equals nature-culture (w-G-h = (p-p)(g-h) = (N)(C), ). We love the beauteous things which are said with no intention of them ever being done. Yes, we do. We don’t equate them with being fully civilized or cultured, such as we conceive and will construct such ( still eschewing idealization).

If nature not be, not be reduced to, but merely including “predator-prey” (we would wish to see whatever considerations of nature are able to exclude “predator-prey” altogether, because we are quite sure we would then be looking at some conception of “culture”) (Itwethey doesn’t want to reduce nature to “predator-prey” but can’t avoid seeing “predator-prey” as essential to Itwethey’s view of what makes nature, nature. (It must also be Itwethey sees civilization as that state of affairs among humans where the “predator-prey” has be’en eliminated.)

Venus walks the path. Languid, for having wanted a path to lead her into wilderness…(must be wilderness isn’t incompatible with path because wild path was forged by wild subject) Itwethey’s Venus fly trap is poised…Remember this is all green. Itwethey’s very being is a fly trap, and yet, and yet, Itwethey has prior to every trapping consideration ( trapping-consideration: please note: it is hateful to everything Itwethey would want or wish, that consideration would be "trap": the copulative: consideration is trap.) Itwethey is already “trapped” by Venus. Trapped into trapping? (Even if this is true, it is irrelevant to Itwethey’s purposes. Itwethey insists her purposes be relevant; all of his irrelevant purposes Itwethey spanks those little dickens.)

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXIX

Slowly, languidly, Venus Fur-trap-like, (wicked snapping of passive green, (traitor to the garden! Traitor to photosynthesis, (elegant compared to spittle-gobbed and fanged “in””beau”gestations or gestions, but not if leaves are going to contort themselves into some evil mouth-jaw shape, and use element of surprise to trap goobs of sun in the form of Yahweh-Prince of Flies, not to say what it is those hangiedown thingies are at the fringe of the leaf—a philosopher who is interested in the mislogic of analogy and also the peculiar way language shapes reality might do well to investigate this homology, this analogy), tensiled phloem, trusted flower, icy beginning, tempting nectar,) and yet very quickly too, vegetal images burnished by animal into slowness of seasonal growth, quickly converted to convention, to Itwethey’s inward eye, an eye preferred, etched, like a sheaf of sketches, mobile, forthcoming, Guest is happening along…Guest is happening: Itwethey, having mistaken the happening for the commodity, snaps down upon Guest, and with clever use of goo (gle) has got some gooey goed geochronal nutrient on which to dine.

When it gets right down to it, what Itwethey is hoping for is an alternative to the predator-prey situation which is the only one relationship on tap(or bottled) in America, even in the remote valley of BwOaska where Itwethey has staked his claims. It’s mistaken for civilization, though it is as far as possible from that. Flmabe art work, and art gallery, and genius level art work can lever or segue, on consignment or offer (or bid) . This is called “mutuality” sometimes, civilization at others, “pluralism” now and then, equality, if we are in a salon, or a coffee shop, where people congregate to celebrate the tame pleasure of caffeine, or purity. Multi-culturalism( a lot of us, maybe even a plurality of us would never have dreamed culturalism was anything but multi—excess—multi pressed onto multi—as a creamed delight presstitution—woohoo! what is tha’ but an affront to purity?(Purity deserves all the effrontery it gets! Until it is something new) Guest’s smile ground into a percolated mixture to be subjected to a boil, or a “biol” (believe it or not, it was difficult to type “biol” into this due to the self-correcting software which wanted “biol” to be “boil” correctly spelled. Dang—“biol” is the word intended, wanted, desired, regardless of “repressive” word-processing software we’ve been baited with.) Venus-warmth-flyeth doth indo splake—wha/ ? Boobs weren’t so much arranged as mouth (though they gaped) as buttock (though they extruded?) rompompumupghpumped-goldfinched! Away. (We get the viol of biol and the boil of violen or the biol boil o’ bi old violent violviolet mauve)

Dictionary is an odd way to establish dominance, doncha think?(Don Johnson and Natalie Hollaway were we oncedowned jubilstreamed! Shitenmearsed! (Just one Polaroid inserted here—as illustration—and by the conventions of path and stoop, maiden-ready, for the image is known and accepted—though Itwethey as scientist hasn’t yet come around to (Fox fur delta…Delta is that special place foxy fur meant and fixtured into dentate Delta is change and it certainly is, as oasis of fertile fructile crescent of moon and fooked) Lion, not lemming, fur. Itwethey mean, who cares about the definitive meaning? Who? Why build a monument to a meaning? To stabilize it? To identify it with a specific WHO who is who? (Fixt that who that monument be manumintal be manatee mermaidal blue and vinyl) Wadja language for cept to dominate? Is it for the lambs or the eagles? (Itwethey knows the warranted humility of such a stupid question. I mean, at the very least he could be celebrating the strange of Kings and proletariat), And yet brilliant for all of that, as is the encyclopedia which gives an authoritative and neutral read of all trappings and frappes of history...

Some minor pleasure. Trust me, more pleasure, even a major pleasure is possible. Somewhat cool, as evidenced by a poof of fogliggetine and forcwueks, like a mutiny, a crust.

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXVIII

The stoop is outside, where it is exposed to the winds that blow, the dust that covers, the leaves that decay, the rain that pools, and thus rots, the sun that nourishes strains of slime mold or algae not pleading the fifth amendment—("Yes, we are algae, and we grow in this restricted pool which has formed in this particular hapless depression (a defect of the two-by-twelve used to make the run of the third step) and we are not ashamed of what we are. We proclaim it and we don’t give a damn if anyone finds us guilty or not. We have staked out this domain (by the wash of our secondary metabolites, which we flush from our living tissues, much as you do your wastes from your anuses into your toilets, and out into the rest of the living world, to be dealt with by the rest of such world such as that living world is able (for the most part, us slime molds and algaes are best for accommodating you, and we feel this should entitle us to a little better treatment by you) to make our lives and to reproduce and be productive by cell division, here. This is what we will do. We rot your stoop and make it unsightly? 'Boo-hoo-hoo.' We could care less. You claim to want guests? We are your algal guests, what? You wouldn’t welcome Nelson Algren? Welcome to Nelson Algae!")

The stoop is relatively outside. (The stoop is partially covered from above by the jutting of the roof.) It offers entry—it offers entry to anyone who will walk up it. If the stoop was not there, a rude climbing, perhaps more difficult for anyone wearing a dress or other such covering, would be required. The stoop removes this discourtesy. The stoop, as it is customary on most dwellings in Itwethey’s locale, could be called, “standard issue courtesy.” Guest will not recognize the courtesy but would recognize the discourtesy if stoop has not been supplied. As a matter of fact, Itwethey has supplied the stoop as a courtesy for himself, primarily, as Itwethey has never yet, except once (this one event is the subject of this story,) had Guest come up the stoop and been thus absentmindedly greeted (in other words, unaware a courtesy, a token of mindfulness, was being extended, exhibited.) It is not objective because walking up it won’t be the same for everyone—Itwethey has hidden within it trap doors and subterfuges by which he will make walking up the stoop a very different experience for those she may not like. To the most naïve, the stoop will be taken as “objective”—it is just there.

Itwethey hadn’t really thought of the stoop as being a courtesy extended to Itwethey merely, when Itwethey had built the stoop. Itwethey now must admit Itwethey was guided by “convention.” That climb which would be rude and unmindful for Guest to make, especially Guest in skirt, the guest Itwethey most lusts after (openly and tolerantly invites, but with passion) wasn’t what Itwethey had planned for. Itwethey, thinking only of herself, would have liked to have forced herself to make that rude climb, each time entering cabin, in order to build gluteal strength, (and work off butt fat) and through the kind of swing of the hips that last tall step requires, increase flexibility. Yes, without the stoop, entry would require and develop strength and flexibility.)

Algal gobs now cover golden gobs, which not unlike spit do rain down onto sunken scene of murky depthal surface though surficial depth becomes our contemporary inquiry. From some indiscriminate sighting above, someone very talented has placed a spotlight—never in a hundred years had Sophocles or Euripides have gathered this placement would have this effect (is that why we only encounter Sophocles and Euripides in a history of literature? Why, in a history of literature, do we yet find in Sophocles and Euripides something new? Iffen they was so unsurfisticated in dramatic lighting? Maybe we can set up a cross-temporal dramatic exchange.) Light refracts (was this anticipated—AND—why is whether it is anticipated or not suddenly to become the “critical” question? Because consciousness is understood as one among many lighting effects?) Gobs sunlight splattering, Itwethey wakes from slumber and resolves to find a clearing within which to better enjoy gobs.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

UmbrageProtectellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXVII

You will put your wager up, Guest? There's more to you than your ample boobs, replete with tits, and attending hair? Anchorite there down below, in a furry repetition of no-place, as a bottom, as a above-bottom known as knew beginnin, or NEW beginnin, or e'en, as we look at KatzenjammerKids, wiedeeveneedrmeprantz, a glory!?*

Monday, April 18, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXVI

Above, Itwethey displays her map of “openness”—the terrain Itwethey hopes to explore “in depth”. Though “openness” must be understood as a surface, with no vertical features, surfaces have topology (topography) and “openness” as surface has a particularly wonderful, intricate topology….The complexity of these folds are precisely the feature which has misled the acolytes and apostles of “openness” to believe they’ve discovered the unlimited. (“Openness” does wish to understand “openness” as the unlimited, and it has certainly set forth an “openness” offering a bounty of folds—Itwethey has been enumerating them, and though it would be premature—in fact would negate this inquiry—Itwethey bets these can be numerated. (Itwethey has placed a wager—that Itwethey will win, no one knows…Which, if you think about it is odd, because Itwethey is in the position to allow Itwethey to win, if Itwethey wants. Because Itwethey authors this?) The tripartite triumvirate IT-WE-THEY authors this, and the tripartite pronounial allows for honest wagers. (Even more so than “committees, legislatures, forums, salons, and yes, racetracks, and casinos.)) Here and there, an I-I-I has noticed these venues of probability “in the age of reason” have the appearance of being fixed.)))

We see that “openness” is not without its violent clashes…Itwethey calls “openness” a battlefield. (Itwethey has grinded his axe that this is a battlefield where sight, sound, smell, of conflict, is repressed—that this repression is what distinguishes this battlefield from other battlefields—Itwethey has ground that axe into the nubbins—prismatic fractalization of ocean spray, of cranappleCannesgoldorb, ground axe spraying submarine like unto ground rich with goldorb, ripe for the extraction and exploitation—But no doubt about it, the iron filings from this axe, scattered and haphazard, fall back into the “openness” battlefield…They are magnetic, as is the battlefield (the big-O-b) itself. They are magnetic, as is the battlefield itself. The battlefield, senseless to the conflict eventuating on its place—no less (no more?) deadly for this senselessness—is attractive.

If you look carefully at the map Itwethey has presented (above—must we always mention that? For sake of clarity or openness?) you’ll see Itwethey’s cabin in there. It’s somewhat below one of the nipples. There’s a solemn and this is to say gloomy valley down there, not exactly in one of the pores, or poorboy wrinkles, or places of neglect (unstitched, unswangled), or characterized such as it is represented in the map above, with a scattering of hairs (the forest, though harmed by warming trends and a long drought, is still “purty good” as faux wilderness, fer as modern, post-modern soldiers of nature be concerned (reasoned?) to judge), or patrolled over by the usual contingent of skin lice eating dead skin or whatever.)) There is no gold dripping from the nipples—not much is made of the sterility, milk-wise, of male nipples, nor their relative inferiority (in size, which is to say quantity, which, as we’ve been hammered to learn, is what males care about—why hasn’t there become a size competition between the sexes about breasts—oops, Itwethey has forgotten about man boobs.) )) As we are talking about nature (for no man did or would design a man’s nipple, or a woman’s boobs, and we only assume (though very, very commonly do) man invented the obsession with quantitation and then decided to make quantitating any damned thing would be the priority-purpose, though not the prior purpose, nor the prior of Christ Church, nor the porpoise diving through ocean spray to make rainbows! Children enjoy!)))

Itwethey will make a foray into the submarine world of the clashes of “openness”. Sectors of “openness.” (Sects are closed, as are cults, and part of the horror of “openness” has been the emergence of anachronistic cults. We all scratch our head at these anomalous and “irrational” results of our new and improved “open” ethics—we are better than this, are we not? No, the results are in: we are not.) Andy Warhol was open and was wounded (and crumpled up as open) by Valerie Solanis, who we regard as a recipient, every bit as much as the best, of “openness”. We assume Valerie had some wafer and/or wager of “openness” upon her—some from Warhol, some from far beyond Warhol. Why does “openness” clash thus? What restriction of space or time, what limitation whatsoever, cause these clashes? Is Itwethey wrong to require of “openness” some generosity and mercy to allow conflicting opennesses?

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXV

As Itwethey unwinds into his tussle with the acolytes and apostles of “openness”, Guest is still with Itwethey at the threshold. Only Guest is not now sandwiched in with Itwethey on this threshold: Guest now oscillates out of the threshold, only touching Itwethey at the lowest moment of the amplitude of the oscillation. In other words, during this time of waiting ( which is created by Itwethey trying to figure something out, and which is inspired by a problem presented by some foreign and yet also internal notion of “openness” ) Guest bounces off and out from the threshold: Guest never enters, Guest never receives introduction or entry (intry) as Itwethey had intended (outietended, delicate tongue, frank handling of moments’ lust wild insincerity of promise most fleshy) (though Itwethey suspends everything in order to examine Itwethey’s ideas about “openness”; as a host, whether this is good or bad is risky. Itwethey is placing good and bad at risk.)

The scene is backlit. Molten gold coins, imprinted with the visage of Neptune, pour over the oscillations of Guest, which break the gold into rainbows. Dozens of porpoises leap into these rainbows, further fractionating it, and making the backlighting of Guest even more exquisite. It makes the scene all aquatic, perhaps as this delights Neptune, whose profile, though now obscured by dazzling prismatics here and there, appears to show a grin. Blue becomes darkness, reds and yellows take on the light. A gob of gold is not perceived as yellow or any shade thereof, but as something show stopping…In a good way.

It is not that Guest is deciding to accept invitation (Guest caught unawares, Guest “getting back to nature” stumbling upon Itwethey’s hospitality forcing Guest to come to grips with what Itwethey has succeeded, in this surprising and shocking display of humility and unaudacity (Marie Antoinette in a grass hut—audacious or not?)), to offer to Itwethey Guest’s startled, shocked, surprised inmost authentic response to “all of this”—better to describe this as Guest for the present unable to emerge successfully from Shock, Surprise, (Unaudacity—what is that: cowardice? This is the motto of the Enlightenment: Am I coward for knowing that I do not know, or a fool for pretending that’s no problem?!!!)

Itwethey is here (at this intellectual position—is an intellectual position EVER a “here”? Here we decide, as we decide openly the decision of closed openness): “openness” understood as “generosity” isn’t the slam dunk corrective or remedying addition to “openness” required to make “openness” accepting to other. Here are four considerations (is a consideration a reason?) 1. Other may not find the generous gift of Itwethey good enough in quality to be acceptable by Other (from now on in these four considerations, Other will be called Guest.) Guest doesn’t need to accept Itwethey’s trash simply because Itwethey offers it as a gift. Guest has many other Itwetheys offering many other gifts, and if ANY of these other gifts are better, Guest does no discourtesy (or more—or less?—strictly—any unethical-- act) refusing “gift” from Itwethey. 2. Guest doesn’t need the gift…It has nothing to do with Guest….Guest has no obligation vis a vis “gift” of ItwetheyItwethey’s precious gift is Guest’s hindrance…Thrown up by Itwethey to ruin or delay or sidetrack or derail Guest’s essence (Itwethey absolves himself from what, from Itwethey’s point of view, is exaggeration, hyperbole, bearing of false witness times eleven!) 3. “Gift” is bad for Guest. Guest has a lot of independence; has through a lot of past generosity developed a great deal of capability, insight, audacity, and autonomy—Guest gets great (infinite? complete? total?)joy marching or promenading or wandering or exploring or investigating on the navigation of this wonderful GPS (God Promises Sweetness) of independence which will vouchsafe and warrant: NGN: (No Gift Necessary.) 4. “Gift” posits some psychological demands on Guest in that “Gift” demands some kind of response (negative, positive, gratitude, thankfulness, rejection—“gift” recipient must do something.) Itwethey knows what is wanted when “gift” is granted: LOVING response (cause and effect is thrown out the window here—“gift” doesn’t cause LOVE; if only it did! (No, Itwethey wouldn’t want the “gifts” he’s received to have caused LOVE or else he’d be married to ReReWooWooPartridgeSquirell, in that hovel, bonded forever.)

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXIV

Itwethey sits staring out a window and up through a dense thicket, onto a bright blue sky, some cliffs, and above the ridge of the cliffs, sun bursting. It’s an intricate interlacing of light and dark, bright and gloom. The forest is downright gloomy, and it always is. It’s cool, and it always is (except when it is frigid.) It is within this ambiguous and delicately vague obscuring of lines between luminous and obscure, scientifically clarified and artistically chiaroscuro, Itwethey opens his “openness.”

Itwethey’s interpretation of “openness” is as a “bidding of welcome.” It is a generosity, a form of hospitality, and (this will require unpacking, “conversation.”) Some kind of warmth…Some kind of welcoming (rather than engulfing, dominating, or addicting) passion…

Itwethey’s “openness” is struggling to emerge against “openness” Itwethey finds to be without warmth; a solipsistic, and even narcissistic “openness”, somehow lacking sincerity—superficial.

Itwethey’s opening gambit is that these unappealing qualities of “openness” may be unlocked by looking at the way this “openness” will or will not embrace what its own metaphors of openness entail, infer, or imply. Sun bursting above ridge, dripping gold down a hillside, gold molten gobbing into living moist darkness, nourishing the darkness, never dispelling it.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXIII

If “openness” is understood (the meaning of “openness” tacitly held by Itwethey and Itwethey assumes many others) within a network of metaphors of structure; and if structure is to be understood as time-invariant; but if the many other people (and Itwethey, too, until some point in time) think of “openness” as time-space-variable and varying (which is to say they don’t necessarily take their own metaphors very seriously, which might also be to say their approach to their own “openness” is open?) The inconsistency of their approach to their own metaphors is more than made up by their consistency in keeping “OPEN”, if open such it be.

Itwethey, however, faces a problem here. Remember, Itwethey wishes to explicate “openness” in a way which would continue, throughout the explication, to be acceptable and recognizable to the acolytes and apostles of “openness” (the many other people who share Itwethey’s vague understanding of “openness.”) Itwethey must choose to take the metaphors seriously, or the intentions of the metaphors seriously, or find a way to take both seriously at the same time (on the surface, the last seems impossible.)

For a long time, Itwethey had bluntly rejected “openness” and its apostles and acolytes precisely when they announced to Itwethey their willingness to not care about any concern outside of their intentions of “openness.” Itwethey saw “openness” as a kind of magic fudge factor allowing for and justifying all rule breaking or inconsistency (“flexibility” understood as ad hoc convenient justifications for not doing the right thing X, where X = anything on any level, but usually a mental act, for reasons to which Itwethey must return.)

Itwethey’s putative discovery of “openness” as time-invariant isn’t useful in explicating “openness” or finding an opening into the acolytes and apostles of “openness” if each time the consequence of “openness” as time-invariant is deemed inconvenient, annoying, or simply unopen (closed.) (This last is the most damning summary judgment of these acolytes and apostles.) There is no way Itwethey knows to show the acolytes and apostles that if the consequences are the true ones, the inconvenience perceived may be apparent merely. (However, that isn’t the real issue—convincing the acolytes and apostles. Itwethey has some real problem of Itwethey’s own in this vicinity, and it doesn’t have anything to do with convincing Itwetheyself, or being true to Itwetheyself.)

Friday, April 15, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXII

Itwethey has proceeded this way:

A. Itwethey refers to something called “openness”, but doesn’t say what that is. This is because Itwethey doesn’t explicitly know what it is. That it is, is something Itwethey relies on others to already know or readily accept. Itwethey assumes “openness” whatever the heck it is, is culturally shared by a very large number of people, who, though their understanding of it may be as vague as Itwethey’s own, the vague understanding is the same vague understanding as Itwethey’s. Itwethey also assumes that as Itwethey clarifies the vague understanding of “openness”, its emerging clarified form will be recognizable by a large number of people as the “openness” that if they had clarified it, would clarify to this form.

B. Itwethey’s vague understanding of “openness” is metaphoric; the metaphors are taken from structural features. That this is so has, as far as Itwethey knows, nothing to do with Structuralism (or post-Structuralism), (or “structural engineering” or structure in any other scientific sense) and that’s all to the good. The metaphors refer to powerful, determining feelings. There is very little symbolism involved. The feelings probably do relate to such social, cultural, or economic phenomena as disciplining, and following routines, punching clocks, following orders, rules, laws, prohibitions, regimentation of all forms, and repressions (understood as the internalization of such disciplining). As both the desire to be able to follow the rules, punch the clock, etc, and the hatred of doing so.

C. Itwethey takes the metaphors seriously and wants to follow their logic: a logic of metaphors. The metaphorical meaning of “flexibility” is not arbitrary. Its association with the concept of structure is not arbitrary. The time-invariance of structure means that “openness” is felt as time-invariant, Itwethey thinks. If so, that might be an important discovery—Itwethey will by and by demonstrate this is so.

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XXI

Characterizing “openness” as hypocrisy, was, as an "opening" volley, mistaken. As an "opening" volley, “openness” is best expressed as akin to flexibility,changeability, and as opposed to rigidity, inflexibility, and the various synonyms thereof, of both.

"Rigidity", "flexibility",etc.,--these are metaphoric for types, or qualities, of structures. Itwethey understands structures as static,(static understood as inflexible in time). Excluding this initial disqualifying consideration of any concept of "openness" which allows without seeming to allow any inflexibility, Itwethey will regard flexible (though inflexible in time) structure as "open." (In other words, Itwethey will consider what openness Itwethey may yet obtain from an "openness" not considered open time-wise.)

Structure can be understood as "open", Itwethey thinks, in all ways, space-wise. (Itwethey has need to pause at how easy it is to say "ways" rather than "variable." Itwethey could say: structure is conceivably flexible for any spatial variable; or, structure can be understood as "open" in all variables, space-wise; or, spatial elements of structures may move. Here, Itwethey must add pause to pause, at the sheer banality of what seemed so exciting previously. Yet it must be clear how weird it is for us to think of structures moving in space while fixed or rigid or invariant in time--Itwethey ordinarily automatically dismisses concepts of space independent of time as obsolete.) Timelessly moving every which way--this is "opennness."

"Openness" is slippery, as slippery as e'er we could wish. It's going everywhere (but not all the time--time is excluded.) Is to structure as falling on our ass is to our dignity: something we’d avoid if we could, though such as our dignity is to our various objectives, because Itwethey stakes it out: if you wish you can consider closedness a variation of openness. Should you disagree, we would all know Structure must choose: "Hey structure, what are you? Open or closed? We will embrace and advite you advance you and subvite you or even, if you bid and we wish, 'outvite' you, whatever you vote, or tote, or toe whatever line, Structure is both OPEN and CLOSED: we therefore outrule and outrole and outvole and out—“out-out” you that we may 'in-in' you, which means, in this context, we don’t care if you choose one or the other." We literally do not care. (Itwethey is not afraid to assert the royal WE (Itwethey got the consent of "it" and "they" before doing so.)

Monday, April 11, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XX

I’ve had you now rigged veda rivb fada!!!

We do wish for: desire. Itwould be better if we did wishdezree, Itwewouldbebetterzeestighthey itzeqeoo: but as it is, we sit, lay, or stand in amazement at some green round, purty and never petrified but we would know ham sandwich spindled in care and LOVE And we say “covet”—illegal desire. (Now what are the nasty desires behind that word? “Covet”—feel at the same time the legality and commingled perversion therein) we will be pushing upward and forward (two covetous directions, to be pursued, along with progressed: coveted upward coveted forward coveted proboscis coveted progressive—the word covet is perfect as far as describing the desires of progress…They each and every retain the contained G space

Desire-wish: I will attempt to describe Andy Warhol as he is in a Helmut Newton photograph. Is Andy someone we would call open or accommodating? We don’t know about that, but we would say Andy was welcoming, and that’s what we value more. He welcomed a lot of people. Okay, his ideas of difference were flawed. We don’t care.

Hairy bush. Alone, solitary. Breathe abbreviated. Abbreviated, for efficiency? Not likely. Abbreviated for the air blue resin plumbed like an electric santilary, of which yoe’ve ne me stram. Like a plume. Welcome in challenge. Welcome in something we must find out about. It was wild welcome. We went to the museum. We saw a lot of stuff, among which, fright wigs they said belonged to Andy Warhol. Woohoowoodeededdeddeswishewaywooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XIX

Deedy, deedy,…dadeedy, dadeedy …Indeed there was a deed…Even out here in the forest Itwethey had staked out as improbably open..As beyond property. thera warz that little makeshift nomadic thingze of evil devil lived livelar vaxplore expladitious. Itwethey had stood there, on a ragged beach, loose skin adhering and also flecks of sand, magnanimous (and Itwethey is on the war path if, as seems to be the case, flecks such as this (with wind, with womb, with will, with winwomwillsheenxshine,) are to be denied: No! Itwethey will cast die down and all the wonder of silent, soft, deedy-da-do-daeio-emfromafreao-emfradtao will come to the rescue of Itwethey’s cast, of this Itwethey has house odds. (More than that. Here, house is church.)

It would all be better if when we hit upon one of the about 500 ways of harmonizing there truthfully and legitimately are to be hit upon, we had found a resting place. We don’t start from a resting place. We start squealing and screaming, naked. No kind of Guest, or, if Guest: greet us by wiping off womb-stench, womb-(slime: note, Itwethey does not reach for that word “slime” though that is the perfect word, in this instance, in this context, for this purpose, for this LOVE.)

Slime-love: "welcome." We certainly do. There’s probably not an ounce of aforethought or planning or estimation or evaluation in it. Get it out of your nose and mouth, that you may breathe. We wonder at your story. We want your survival more than your LOVE--we will sustain this want, be assured (and insured, if to be insured means we cooperate for your fragile survival.)

The equation here, which is one of the most powerful in the history of our kind, is: harmony=resting place. Resting place = “openness” (the acolytes and apostles do say), =”passivity” (that this last is so is more obvious, but let us be frank…To equate this obvious thing with what follows to a red-blooded American male—passivity = wuss; that’s not an obvious move, and probably most of the erstwhile afortainedmentioned would say so also, standing in line for a ham sandwich, which is smothered in cayenne and bobdylansmickers, ice cream sandwich to follow (as immaculate description)...

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.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

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?

Saturday, April 09, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XVI

The probiliscope was intruded into Itwethey's project of courtliness. Of Itwethey's courtship of known and unknown. Itwethey couldn't have commemorated this, sitting idly in his warm bath of (here, we have been tempted to be cute--we will, due to some unknown force, refrain), of--some kind feeling for all of you who Itwethey will never know.

Itwethey had taken a long shot--Guest would exist, but never ever or by the by or by occasional nod take into mentality have known, Itwethey required something of Guest. Guest only wanted to "get away."

Itwethey wanted to screw with this, and with everything Itwethey might think Guest would exhibit. Itwethey knew whatever Guest would come down path, up stairs (please correct into "stoop": Itwethey stoops and threshes holds to capture)Itwethey would court and of course, in planning for everything Itwethey had never thought of creating a courtyard. There's some matted down moss, and detritus, serving as courtship yard, but no more. Path is beautiful, but not in the way corruptyard is, or would be.

Unelectable, inelectable, raison d'etre, Itwethey holds many balances, like a deer. Like a woman subjected to X-ray vision, subjected to some frail pretense of "all is well." Itwethey sings so many ballads, all of them moving. To move had been decided prior to Itwethey's birth.

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XV

Why do multiples of five feel so rhythmically perfect? Itwethey wanted to call them “even” because they feel so orderly, so even-keeled, that no matter the roiling of the bottomless waters beneath the keel,(Itwethey knows numbers such as fifteen are not “even”) Itwethey may sip his tea (sip, not suck; tip not trowel; fold, not spindle or mutilate (such is nothing more than revelation of Itwethey’s age—as far as Itwethey can discern, or disconcerto mourn—always delightfully young, though stiff and unshiny) may be open to without being drowned in the leak which is Itwethey’s openness): alone. A cow was beautiful, however fed.

Guest stands, imploring. To all it looks as if Guest is naked, and even Guest’s eyes, to Guest’s credit, look naked. Itwethey requires of Guest that Guest allow Itwethey to make love, whether or not that’s a foregone conclusion (Itwethey is structured such that this is never assumed, taken as a solid premise, or concrete (why did concrete become so popular, and as it were akin to modernity and progress: because Marx wished to say something critical about the role of philosophy such as it had always been heretofore? Probably.)

This is number fifteen. Itwethey would curry your favor by making this a place filler. All of Itwethey’s various permutations (and how delectable to put “per” before mutation: Itwethey has a recommendation for Hollywoo'ed: movies about mutation have played out, but until “per” mutations have played out (which is never) you are okay. Therefore, shift to movies on permutation…This will be more hospitable, comfortable, and yes: suntanworthy.

Now we are on fifteen. We have been waiting to meet Guest, with hospitality, honor, nobility, grace, comfort, a glass of sweet wine, without whine, without garland, Judaic or otherwise, without whatever it was Barbara said about semiotics, without the rub, clandestine, of ladder against chin, against chafe, against chaff (it is our buggerboo), against a twining river, opaque, containing within its sylvan wrath, a wrap (chicken pecking in there, or only cilantro stiniking?) a ring, Neurewrapwrath, that in this dim round we might say: FIFTEEN!

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XIV

Before we can continue, Itwethey finds it necessary to make a small clarification.

Itwethey has not persuaded Guest to become naked and fetch firewood. Itwethey has not even yet spoken to Guest. Itwethey is in no way intimate with Guest. Guest has, in actuality, not yet crossed Itwethey’s threshold. Itwethey is still, though Guest is at Itwethey’s threshold, preparing for Guest—Itwethey remains in the preparation stage of encounter. (If there is such a stage of encounter—this is part of what Itwethey burns to know.)

What we saw before, in the unlucky portion of this account of what may become an encounter, was a time effect of Itwethey’s probiliscope. (There was another such event earlier, a very close call where Itwethey, through overdose on the probiliscope, very nearly engulfed Guest, ruining everything.) From now on, Itwethey will find a convenient way to distinguish and communicate probiliscope effect from non-effect(normal or actual or reality or say what?)

The probiliscope is invented, but its range and power remains to the largest extent unexplored. Itwethey has enough on the plate already without monkeying with the probiliscope, but can’t help it—it’s too tempting, it is too exciting to play with. Besides, there seems to be some overlap between these three most important of Itwethey’s ventures: preparation for encounter with Guest; God as contained space; and finding out what the probiliscope can do. Yes, Itwethey plans to aim the probiliscope at God. Itwethey has every intention of succumbing to that temptation—as soon as Itwethey gets up the guts, that is. ( Seeing a preview of Guest naked, while wonderful, is now regretted by Itwethey—it is contrary, Itwethey thinks, to Itwethey’s intention.)

Friday, April 08, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Partly Unlucky

Bark peeling off sawed logs, logs more pithy and punky than suspected when tree felled>>> Guest, naked, stands legs apart>>> in a wide stance: practical because Guest is holding logs; appealing because Guest is naked. Guest looks squarely at Itwethey: practical because Itwethey had asked Guest to get logs and Guest needs to get from Itwethey what next to do; appealing, because, once again: Guest is naked. How it is Itwethey has got Guest, for whom Itwethey had wishes to treat with utmost consideration from the moment of encounter, to both undress and fetch poorly stacked and therefore punky firewood,(both conditions calling into question both the functionality of the wood for burning, and the request to go get it for burning) must be one of our next necessary steps of inquiry into the relationship between certainty and uncertainty in their as yet undeterminedly necessary or unnecessarily additional capacity relating to: hospitality, compost, comfort, and ….a durned good time!

Whose captures Guest’s look (the one where Guest is standing naked, holding firewood, look chained, look linked, chained look, link chained, viable, violable-ent, somnoviolenviolavibratosunsetolent), inside Itwethey’s probabiliscope: it must be Itwethey, for as of yet only Itwethey knows of the invention of the probabiliscope, and its valuable uses. Few though they were, this was one of Guest’s best herring-glints to capture. As in the twentieth century so many arresting images had been captured through photography, Itwethey knew his probabiliscope would capture its chaff of harvests and in the shrine for that purpose Itwethey had commissioned in Le Havre, not a probability of haves and have not, but everyone celebrating the innocuous and undisguised and unmuddled celebration of whatever it is, is has.

Itwethey was as theywe doubt anyone finds hard to imagine, very impressed when Itwethey had invented the probabiliscope. His attention for quite awhile was diverted from preparation for Guest (though Itwethey awake or sleeping or in that indeterminate state of wake-sleep dream-reason work-aply application-plan-pan) for Itwethey preparation for Guest had involved the planning to throw the dice and to rescue from dice throw some divine care, or, as it were, necessity of chance, chance rigidified so that when Guest came, Guest might have some reason for having come. As understood by Guest. As appreciated by Guest. As having been validated and registered by Guest. (In other words, giving satisfaction to subject and object, subject-object, each and many and few.) Guest had to become for Itwethey the certainty and necessity of Itwethey’s risk of chance. It helped a lot when Guest was willing to become naked.

Itwethey says “welcome.” Guest, chained in the chain-link fence of modernity Mediterranean, ternity (Arctic Ternity) sllookks at Itwethey and says: “emoclew”. Itwethey, legs apart, determined never to be entered, wants his termity to be frozen as an Arctic, plugged. Is Guest going to insult Itwethey? Slowly, lugubriously, interminably, and yet—yes, yeasterday, as yesterday—Itwethey will plan to burn the barky-berkeley Aspen logs Guest now proffers.

Thursday, April 07, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XII

Recount for us, if you will, Itwethey, the steps which take you to this place where God is intimate, and yet your fellow man is distant; where you prepare greeting with ineluctable and aleatory and yet studied and grave care (concern: in a mindforge this is said to be "condiscern", no matter what side effects, niggling horrors or slights your concerned and discerning cognated laborers want to put up later—Itwethey will enjoin); as if this is the absolute foreign with which you have nothing in common; as if God waiting is something qualitatively incommensurate-- you envisage Him as inmost within. God gives Himself; your fellows, with divine reserve, maybe not (through the randomness and discretion of their love, they are terrible.)

It is in a forest, dark, gloomy, decrepit, diseased, stifled, repressed; and yet you Itwethey, offer something you call flame-labor-suspense-dime-store—an appeal, humble by random, universal meaning connected to nothing; connection with something costing more than any of us commoners can afford, though many of us as of yet sexy, as of yet jungle or temperate forest enflamed! Temperature and time of temperate forest being elevated most exquisitely, as if temperate were the most exquisite time and temperature—yes, maybe so. Temper, temper—temper? Maybe so, if there is someone measuring temper(time) or temperature( heat).

Itwethey never in a billion years would have held heat in reserve. Nor time. Itwethey, truth be told did want it all now? (Why would desire be different?) What would a pause give to desire? What would a dimple give to relief? Over-excitation? That explains excitement, not relief. It describes pleasure, not peace.

Itwethey says, “welcome.” By it is meant: hindrance offered as gift to mind and body. Wrinkle: by which is meant acceptance of gift by mind and body. Grumble: by which is meant acceptance of hindrance and wrinkle (not resistance.) Get it over with if you will: Itwethey, speaking on behalf of all of us, loves the play and palaver of this prolongation of naughtiness—hindrance, goat, gatotat, falling flailing, fleshing, flthreshing, thresh: the "It" from the “we” from the “they”: then make "it?" the mission of (totalization?) to put it back together. What value proposes “itself (itwethey)” as higher?

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part XI

Guest is, if Guest is and if Guest is as such, to Itwethey: l’autre (obviously?)

God is, if God is and if God is as such, Itwethey’s interior AND exterior. How and why God as interior AND exterior could be thought by Itwethey to be God as form, as contained space, as control, strikes Itwethey as crazy, implausible, and yet, Itwethey has both thought AND been this thought (Itwethey doesn’t want to deny the intimacy of this crazy thought, and what’s more, Itwethey knows Itwethey has thought and been this crazy and unexplored thought most thoroughly and intensely in moments Itwethey felt most sane, self-explicitly examined, and worthwhile.) Itwethey can think of himself as crazy, but as implausible? That's a limit to be tested.

God is, as interior AND exterior: both the first and last instance of cabin-interior with window-eyes and door-mouth in series with other cabin-interior with window-eyes and door-mouth peering, peering endlessly in two directions (unto either dead-end, where the series does end, as God.) Itwethey sees this as ugly and unsatisfactory, and cowardly, too. It is Itwethey’s reference point, in life, action, thought, in respite, in worship, even sleep. Itwethey might not be able to wake up without it. Itwethey does constantly worry: is this waking?

God is self-certain (cabin-interior is self-certain, as is cabin-exterior); and the gambit of Guest is to be invited, greeted, and hosted random. Itwethey, solitary, lingering, fingering, coiffed and chaffed and chafed, singled and singed and annealed, waiting passive alert, inane and inert, would treat God as Guest(not as interior or exterior, but as other): Itwethey has a number of questions, and beyond that, problems.

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.

Sunday, April 03, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part IX

God is a confined space. God is a glowing eye the reach of which is confined.

The door of the cabin was a mouth; it didn’t gape, and as a good door, it allowed entrance and exit. Itwethey had entered and exited it many times, to the point it became the habitual act. It would be fair to say it was habitual to enter and to exit, but what happened was that it was habitual to enter, never to exit. Itwethey entered long ago and never went out. No matter where Itwethey went, Itwethey never left the cabin. Why the habitual would be unsymmetrical, Itwethey pondered. Itwethey left the cabin, went outside, walked down the path, laboriously surmounted windfall, went out onto the road, and from the road could have gone anywhere on earth—and Itwethey was aware of this potentas—this satisfactory openness (openness is power)--but nevertheless Itwethey never went out the mouth. Itwethey wanted to be the tongue sticking out of this mouth, or expectoration, or vomit—or a word howled--but it never happened. Itwethey was unexpectorant expectation, muffled, interminably. Itwethey was a guttural sound made at the back of the mouth (oral cavity as interior of cabin), echoing of the body, not rude, not significant, ultimately drowned by the teeth, the lips, and the front of the mouth (tartar.)

Itwethey doesn’t want to personify the stoop or the path. What does personification in an asubjectival world mean or do? Allow production?

It was a problem—Itwethey had been tortured to solve it generally or specifically, abstractly or concretely. Itwethey loved the idea of solving the problem randomly, because randomly meant, to Itwethey “no effort.” Unfortunately, all of the problems Itwethey solved randomly were solved unsatisfactorily. In all honesty, Itwethey often did achieve starting points to a solution via randomness—starting points, in other words first steps—to a hard won solution (hard won—in other words somehow “concerted” or whatever the antonym of random may be. Or whatever the antonym of “feel good” may be. Or whatever the antonym of “effortless” may be.) And also in all honesty, when Itwethey did so, he was forced to see how perverse the starting point had been (the random, effortless and happy “moment.”) Itwethey couldn’t “learn” from this, however, because Itwethey felt he knew he would never have had the courage or audacity to begin working to a solution at all, if he had not embraced some starting point, no matter how damned perverse it was…If the random made the “starting point” and made it palatable, and happy, and filled with joy, and in some weird violent and purple perplexed purplahexedenined pukla way something Itewethey could gather into, and coil up in, to strike “out” (out of the habitual which was in all ways always inward)…It was best.

Saturday, April 02, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part VIII

Itwethey says bride bidden fresh through incorporeal bite be bedded embedded overbite just as fresh though Itwethey has asked guest (guest? Bride? Without inviting or indenting or intending it, Itwethey has invited, indented, and intended guest to merge with bride, guest-bride!)(wills Itwethey, itwehey! Guest-bride-X. “X” understood as varaiblesque, to be equated without variablesque unto arabest arabewque, Itwethey will be repelled if antiquated or adequated into grotesque, though Itwethey knows self as gargoyled framed in sky between earth and sky between sacral-illiac, mons-pubis and morte-public, or gulf-clean and gulf-BP,) Itwethey, standing inside, before threshold, lusts into guest-bride, precariously waiting (but we thought Itwethey only waits?) on stoop, stoop of herring and anchovy.

Dark bitter bite, bidden in beer violent and yet Itwethey says gentle, gentle as gentile genitalia, sensitive, given to over-excitation, relishing every taciturn turn of screw in screw, given and relishing makeshift lean-to in makeshift forest (forest as refuge from the makeshift, the mandigomanmade, from artifice, we must see, somewhere’s along this path, this way,) nutrition is state-feed. Diet is what bureaucrat puts into mouth (not of river, but of sewer, going in equals coming out, and nothing is coming and/or going.)

Bride on threshold says to fleeting past, rushing away, suddenly regretted, in roar of water (of time, for time’s rush is as magnificent) that sparkling time holds in its thresh this bride, this embrace, this native holder of reflection, though grey, though cold, though northern, though holding function, though of seed and of chaff it says to bride: your chaff I want to chafe me because that’s the sexy part, the part I love, and bride isn’t replete of your dynamo, though beloved, in so many media.

A little love bite. That’s the way guest walked onto path. A bite of a tasty worm. Path was like worm. Itwethey had felt so many shames, and yet tasty worm was not on Itwethey’s radar. It was, rather, what Itwethey included amongst Itwethey’s treasure chest of allures, a rare blessing, a night of jars held ajar that day again begin: guest, your neck, your you silent as a red-eye, est like lightning, is is lightning withheld from grammar, a little think in a night sky I saw your swan neck bite allure in fathomless confined green-blue I can’t reflect your color without my color night dream (threshold the cream) color.

Friday, April 01, 2011

Umbrellas Unopent in Tempests, Part VII

Guest like bride veiled speaking words well rehearsed guised to formality disguised night of seduction…All this mythical preparation for celebration of wildened sensual ill-considered sympathy of moment of innocounter. Aren’t you going to carry me over threshold? Best guess guest can do. Itwethey, suddenly seeing grumbles eyed and not-so-satisfying, sees anti-climax. Itwethey says, “welcome.” (Wel…come? Well, must ye come? Must I come? What have I done?)

Guest is aware of veil, of uncertainty, of blushing, of white goof, where did it come from? It was a day off, a moment of encounter of dark forest, a silent path suddenly and surprisingly inviting…To go in there, in spite of bug bites, mosquitoes, to get away, to forget about “finding anything” and to forget about fears of “losing everything” and to be enveloped by dark somnolent cloaking chaotic comfort…What is this embrace? (Confined space of sparkling grey water.)

Guest take guest a nature walk…Only requirement being no artifice. No labor of scratch, itch, or safeguard of scratch or itch…Just motion, through balm of darkness, balm of silence, balm of , um , “balsam poplar” (where else does all that balm come from? It doesn’t come from fluorescent lights or even church candles-watts, what? You quid my psalm? You wat my quaint light lit and extinguished for votive? I do. Bid bride bridge stoop sayeth bed ye adieu (on but oh butt et eats angeled cake like)

Threshed holed bride carried…Spoled spooled spiled delectable…Thrush thresh your guest over your threshold that you may hold your guest thrushed and cervical or circular or circulated or recirculated or over some maiden-like hill or vale knowing in a moment of sacral-cervical wonderment (nourished by attilla-climax) anatomy is destiny and destiny is guise, or disguise or guise-disguise. If he or she or it must we they must also they to the we to the it to the abode of disavowal of proponent pronounal metaphor so that the sheen of anchovy anchorite anchored to narrow fiord be veiled speaking words well rehearsed.