the committee for the sanity and respectability of literatures been meeting again recently and going into some of your past - what do we call them chapters? vignettes? posts? entries?
i dont care what you call them
heffalumps?
sure
weve been deepdiving into some of your past heffalumps and a decent number of them are quite crazy, embarrassing really
what weve been telling you
why dont you remove them - keep only the - what shall we say - more refined ones - more accessible
were all embarrassing creatures fuk, doo doesnt try to shine its embarrassment but neither does it try to hide it, whether that embarrassments in the present past or future
some arent even comprehensible, at least according to any notion the committee views as comprehensible - and the committee you know has some very eminent and esteemed presences on it
there was a period of a number of years where we were adventuring quite heavily into whats often called the irrational - not as a superior place but as a fully legitimate place - not to reside there as a permanent home but to integrate so to speak the irrational with the other places - to become comfortable with its grammars and geometries - not to return to reason as residence but become a citizen of all spiritopsychmental lands
these other places - reason you mean? comprehensibility? civility? communication?
whats sometimes called reason is certainly one of them - but considering we were trained like most in reason primarily as an instrumental device - a device we were and are more than competently skilled at - but one we increasingly felt as severely limited, flawed - we felt we needed to reconstitute reason and the way to do this was to pilgrimage into unreason - or at least lands alterous to our training
sounds primitive
in the best possible sense - to return in constructive ways to a kind of animism in which technobifurcating reason is deconstructed through the distributed consciousness of things
there are also a lot of heffalumps that seem frankly hateful supercilious elitist narcissistic
weve gone over all this before - doos a novel as it includes the panoply of voices and the voices you refer to are inevitably in the cast blabbing with all other voices - why wouldnt we include them - its therapeutic - particularly as doo the path and novel is to nonjudgmentally facilitate environments so voices can blab without enactment in dimensionality - listen to them and aesthetically transcribe them - doo doesnt identify with the voices - doo doesnt even identify with doo
how should these insane heffalumps be read
madness, irrationality - they have their own logic - as fully as sanity and reason - whonyms typically though are trained to keep them separate and to view irreason as illogical, reason as logical - so one of the themes of doo the novels to play with these separations, these walls - to explore various logics and get them talking - of course were not interested primarily in doing this theoretically - a notable limitation of the academe - but in our meat - which means we have to enter these spaces with our entire being and believe - not in any ultimate sense but sufficiently for the purpose of the journey
sounds like a religion
were all religious if religions the path of struggle of immanent numinosity - this collective essential whonym struggle manifest in so many ways - doo prefers this struggle expressed through what we sometimes call apophatic aesthetics (which includes playing in the dialectic of unreason and reason) to the more dominant religions of money reputation status power accumulation measurable productivity sport politics business and so on - which we feel are primarily destructive and at the end of their useful life - and truly madder than anything were doing - its just that the madness of the dominant and ubiquitous has somehow become normalized through the psychohistorical process and now wears hardened masks of respectability and sanity
so these more unsavoury heffalumps arent meant to be read
i dont know in this context what you mean by - arent meant to be read - the teleological desire inherent in this phrase is very much part of that sort of reason weve been journeying to get away from - we write more from certain classic notions of poetry - because we have to - for the muses (though detaching this concept from historic musey notions of mythical and embodied gender and sex) - as invocation and if we dare say it healing
romantic
but its not really as it doesnt reify
but youre reifying this what you call poetic path all the time
were defending it certainly as theres little support for it in society presently and the path of learning how to defend has at times necessarily we think included not just defence but offence - but as reason and unreason dance together in more engaging choreographies that which you perceive as reification may also naturally be diminished
so youre integrated now, enlightened
not at all - weve been using the term for some time - endarkenment - not as a call to evil or ignorance as thats normally understood but unknowing - unknowing in the mode of the most robust and vital mysticisms across times and spaces and embodiments - we feel as if weve migrated more into spaces we could call love - but we avoid this word as its unfortunately too associated with sentimental sediment tribal segmentation and possession and power rather than mutualized energies and distributed shared consciousness across species and spirits - we actually dont know the right word for these spaces and that may be part of it and why were oriented toward philosophical daoism - which says there is no word for it and all words are the word and notword - endarkenment isnt a finality but an ongoing struggle with acceptance of nonfinality - a loose tethering to doubt including of course doubt of self death identity knowledge hierarchy - all these seemingly intractable and curiously invisible things because they are reified - taken for granted as ineluctable givens
you clearly despise those not on this path
not at all - the whonyms we like and naturally associate with arent particularly on this path - but they are on paths and these paths arent paths of domination - thats primarily what we need and respect - constructive caprice conceptual flexibility and harm minimization - doo the novel is doo the life - novel aestheticizes doo and doo aestheticizes novel - in other words doo aestheticizes doo - we doo believe that our present dominant hierarchies values and narratives are fucked - no offense fuk - and that they need to be comprehensively reoriented toward contextual ethics and care - if doos about anything essential its this - how were trying to do this may be unorthodox but as far as we can tell the conventional modes arent working very well - were not sure doo works either but we felt we needed to experiment - and continue to feel this way - and what to experiment with other than our very life
but why aestheticize
to get beyond meat as primary determinant of consciousness without despising meat but also without eating deriding apotheosizing craving it
youre beginning to sound crazy again doo
part of the game in doodoo fuk
here we are in gek poh 283 metres under the singapore mrt gabbing it up again with fuk and doo - sane or insane disrespectable or respectable conformist or nonconformist vulgar or proper any of the myriad combinations and gradations - here we are
