That's right, grand exquisitely personal drafting of a prose-piece forming before your very eyes, part-experimental part-benefit of the internet, and so it goes.
So...we begin. My complaints on how I cannot visually layer words with html like I can in other layout forms continue in silence henceforth, and I deal with this technical limitation (and they once said technology would revolutionize art. Pah!)
s name was Murphy, even though she once made a list of names she wouldn't want to date, and his was one of them. Ione finished reading, frowned, an
salutations
the destructive fault of following
chronological order: time originally conceived by man. man is
destructive. hence: ridiculous yet interesting topic regarding
the slowly oncoming ice age (huge) alongside the onslaught of
global warming. man set up against nature to counter the
effects. creation and destruction beget nothing, or rather,
the status quo. Assumption: the status quo is good.
*
Fear risk? Risk fear.
my obsession upon seeing chagall's name hanging from the met caused me to tumble upwards (on the stairs) and thus caught and tore. and that was my day today, with the expected contiuum of inspiration which came from walker evans, sparkling eyes, frantic pieces of paper, a pen borrowed from the delightfully intuitive claire.
so i said i was to say to say that which i said may i say so
books, bought, addiction, caught. but i promise you it's only $7 my dear, and not only that but he was a musician, a musician who just came back from jerusalem with a guitar strapped on his back and aren't misplaced clauses just wonderful? that is, if they really aren't misplaced.
what
is misplaced is the fact that ctrl-s is now a part of my
typing colloquialism, even though first it is obsolete (then again, only
in most applications) due to autosave, and second, it may do
other things in other applications (such as with cc:Mail, it sends
the mail i am in the midst of composing). this is
an improvement over my constant bickering with alt-f-s (alt-file-save), which
not only took an extra key type, but also (mainly) is
no longer available as a save option
on MSWord files (at least, not if you already have
the file saved and are only updating/editing it). (by the way,
updating and editing should not be used interchangably.) what i do especially
like about the internet gold rush, email gold mine, is
that the word "I" as in me is acceptable
as "i", less emphasis on the self, and much cultural
effect as a result on English writing society. many cultures deemphasize i, the
ego, the id, the superego, etc., and it is reflected in their
culture (or vice versa). perhaps this wave of typing
laziness could then aeffect (or is aeffected by, what does it
matter anymore (and yes i do know it's affect on
a base level but i like the way effect changes the
meaning)) the way English-writing society (including America)
sees their own individuality, as diminished, which i find a
good thing. to strive for the individual self alone not only
takes a lot of time and energy, but is also a waste of time
and energy. the only problem that remains is that i even
though lowercased is still a lone letter (good for ee
cummings), and stands and looks like a person standing, alone,
as opposed to "yo" or "ego" or "je" or "ich", and especially
as opposed to the i not even existing except for the hinting
at the end of the conjugated verb. going briefly back to the
alt-f-s, though, it feels more natural, less of a stretch,
than ctrl-s, and you don't risk the repercussions of
accidentally sending out an email prematurely (for if alt-f-s
is possible, it is most likely going to be a file
save).
disgust:
interruptions
to me: surfing the web at work, revelling in the find of those who use perl to construct poetry, of course, rather puerile means and justification, which need only a bit more expansion, and then voila, my secret thesis exposed.
to me: is it just me, or does my soft
spot for pretentious intellectuals preclude my ever finding
someone mature with a high E.Q.? endless nights of arguments
with contemplating an ending, which is really just another
beginning. mass confusion. wanting to begin but not wanting to
end. problems hand-in-hand. brief, inattentive attemps at
moving on. resisting, holding back. wanting to begin but not wanting to end and knowing that beginning would probably instantiate an ending. or is that true? can iend at the beginning and begin at the ending? time as
irrelevant? my elementary standing in terms of quantum
physics. light still traveling from a star that died only one
billion years after the world was born. the idea that an
ending occurred and remnants still exists in light form. the
idea that the world was born, if time is irrelevant. the idea
that only is placed before one billion years. the idea that
without ending i probably cannot begin. the idea that even if
i do end, light form of the ending will still remain.
i would for test: ignore
the soft spots. float down. find the middle way. Assumption:
fundamental truth is good.
do not read this in chronological (up to down;
left to right) order. never. I.
rambling aka tangents,
imo: something you can avoid, something you find necessary.
does selective reading of these tangents (ostracized into
footnotes) make for better piece? cleaner? like classes? is
this a good piece? if the point is to attempt chaos and
explain and justify, haven't i then succeeded?
huge assumption, could mean the end of the
world if untrue: good is good.
(other side assumptions: the end of the world
is bad. untrue is different from true. untrue is false.
assumptions work.)
* so even though i said do
not follow this piece in chronological order, you probably
will (with the exception of this footnote, I suppose). But due
to the "hence" ideas, perhaps this so-called destructive way
of reading is actually a good thing, IF countered against a
non-chronological, or in my opinion, constructive, way of
presenting the reading material. (no THEN
statement further emphasizes the chaos attempt, even though
(meta-metatextual right now) since I really did say THEN
although not in the logical-semantics sense but in the
syntax-will-execute-nonetheless sense, does that mean I am
resultingly following the traditional man-made rules and
unavoidably falling back, and even worse, since I am
anticipating that you will read this (roughly) in
chronological order, that I have indeed failed to make any
point come to be whatsoever, and simply have this here as an
interesting way to present an interesting idea that only
exists in theory? And if that is the case, have I
merely wasted my time/energy/life, and has my
journey/process/life failed? Is failure bad? Is the outcome of
the journey important? Isn't it more important, rather, that
the journey was made in the first place? And, to continue my
already ludicrous proposal, does the journey even have to go
in order, i.e. beginning to end? Can we get there
(the destination) first, and then go back through the journey,
without flashbacks? Answer: yes, it's been done, if you count
the reader as a journeyman, and his reading
as the journey. However, what about the original journey?
Simply because the original supposedly exists in realtime does
not mean he is limited from participating in what the reader
can do on a daily basis (of course, vicariously, through what
he is reading).).**
** tree basis: good
idea.*** commentary: I find ").)." soothing and grammatically
correct. Why is this not done more often? Why does tradition
force us to think that only one period is smoother? **** It is
like hung punctuation, once considered a printing art-form.
Now we are so used to computer applications and thus most
reading material void of this art, and so would seeing hung
punctuation make us frown in disgust, or is something, when
considered aesthetically pleasurable, remain aesthetically
pleasurable (which really needs to be fully separated somehow,
explored in this piece, from the sexually pleasurable, which
does indeed include the unaesthetic, the taboo, the
psychological influences, as well as the aesthetic, of course.
but for many reasons they border.) (this will/should be a
footnote on the last parenthesis, but for now. Think of a Venn
diagram, with two circles, one is aesthetically pleasurable,
the other is sexually pleasurable (there are many other
circles involved, but models/simple-case-scenario is ample for
now). they overlap (to what degree you may believe to your own
opinion), but when all is said and done, there are areas that
do not overlap. this i'd at least like to say for now i fully
believe. so, on that note, is that area of aesthetically
pleasurable 1) universal 2) timeless and I suppose thus
3) godly, or godlike, as in omnipresent, omniscient and
immortal? Maybe the leftover area is so small (other areas
encompassed by circles similar to the sexually pleasurable
circle, such as the culturally pleasurable, timely
pleasurable; think humor if this seems out of reach),
relegated to things such as: birth. death. hung punctuation.
(i would make another footnote but I lost track of asteriks
and am getting a little lazy right now. but onto my point.
birth and death, both of which could also be seen as
unaesthetic, or ugly, or whatever. note i said ALSO, meaning
yet post-modern idea of AND as opposed to OR, saying that
these things can remain in light. you could also say (to play
the devil's advocate) that birth (and thus death) is also a
sexually pleasurable idea (and not to mention that study where
they found out (only oh so recently) what the G-spot is
really****** for), so it's in the overlap. but you
could justify almost everything that way, and i thus find that
argument not worth exploring. for now.
*** good idea somewhat;
not in this chronological paper-resembling format. perhaps
utilizing frames (as with my old installation of my webpage)
or links could assist this new way of reading. after all, it
already has. eBooks, then has a better lifespan than regular
books.
**** and the period, the
name of it, has relation to the female period, which comes at
a regular rate, not simply once.
****** I'm probably supposed to be at 5
asteriks (not to mention all the exciting ideas that pop into
one's head at seeing a multi-asteriked area, perhaps covering
up letters, as with a password, that connotate something
censored)...anyway, can I do something else besides italics,
bold, strikeout, and
regular...for different emphasis? people should work on that. (should: a word
i've been told in the corporate world
to NEVER use. this has affected me adversely, which i
never wanted it to do. naturally, i still use the word, but
sometimes i wonder if i use it to rebel.
sometimes i also wonder about the fact that when
i do use the word, i think of this corporate memory, and it
affects me, and i don't like that. unconsciousness, stream of writing, etc. is
naturally affected by many things, and i find that beautiful,
but this one thing i didn't want. but
now it's a part of me. try to think: every time you
see the word should, i've probably pondered over it, regrettably.)
--jmfe
so that's all i have so far. this is great; my creative writing professors made distinct rules against this running commentary from the author and then from the readers, and i frown upon such pre-post-modern thought. or even, undeveloped post-modern thought,...
for example, i plan on including more bits and pieces from my previous works (truncated mid word of course, as an indicator) and layering beyond all need, to give that JSP effect, right. Lots of strange syntax.