“Was not their mistake once more bred of the life of slavery that they had been living?—a life which was always looking upon everything, except mankind, animate and inanimate—‘nature,’ as people used to call it—as one thing, and mankind as another, it was natural to people thinking in this way, that they should try to make ‘nature’ their slave, since they thought ‘nature’ was something outside them” — William Morris
3 comments:
Very inspiring to me in terms of experiencing my world as I walk down the street. I suppose this rejects the idea of a holographic world.
Heraclitus might disagree with getting rid of movement although y'er point seems to be that causality is not a form of quotidian Oedipal oppression. Isn't that itself an artificial ontological framework? Redefine movement as a sense of quantum 'longing' which exists in a stillness that rejects its own phase. Spinoza would agree as you say.
Dig the shirt! Very Trogs or Zombies mid 60s Britpop after everyone lost the sharkskin suits and skinny ties. I regularly dine in a Bengaladeshi restaurant with a similar aesthetic assembly of Christmas/Dawali lights to the Serpentine backdrop and find the experience smashes together contradictions (does that produce ambiguity or further unsustainable paradox oxymorons?) concerning the provisional aspect of relationships to and between objects. I reference the shimmy-shimmy coco bop of Yayoi Kusama's work:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/entertainment/prepare-yourself-for-kusamas-infinity-mirrors-at-the-hirshhorn/2017/02/21/d68244f4-f89b-11e6-aa1e-5f735ee31334_video.html
AAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I love it!!!!!!!!!
The world is teeming!
Thank you.
YESSSSSSSSSSSS! So rare and good to hear these passionate excavations, ontological "digs" where so much is re-revealed, revealed again, familiar, recognized, and utterly fresh, a constant ah yes that's right! Your work is spoken/written in such "quivering nowness" of tongue that what you say is audible in how you say it.
A friend of mine, reading Dark Ecology said he got lost in deliberate obfuscations of language. I couldn't agree, because if the listener/reader follows closely, you define/refine minutely as you go...and thus though you are both dark and brilliant, you're never obscure.
Thank you.
Post a Comment