Ben Emerick: disqualifying society
Previous page | Next page | Page: 3 of 10 |
Jump to page:
Page 3
if the creation is desired, it is to be considered whether the medium which allows and perpetuates repeated messages is desirable, and whether the currently available medium will allow desirable messages to be perpetuated, and whether it is desirable for the perpetuation to outlive the speaker.
if the medium is desirable, then wanted and unwanted messages are in conflict.
if the perpetuable and desirable messages are wanted, while undesirable and wanted messages are perpetuated, then the wanted and unwanted messages are in contradiction, instigating the invention of a new medium in which only wanted and desirable messages are perpetuated.
if we desire a system in which a message cannot outlive, speak for, and take responsibility from the speaker, then we will invent a medium in which no message is perpetuated.
a joke about centers:
when one speaks about a particular body and its center of gravity, the shape of, and distribution of mass across, that body will determine one only one and not more than one center of gravity.
once that center is determined you can’t count the number of shapes of and distributions of mass across a body that will generate that center.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
the significance of a rule is when is it broken.
the sum of all rules is silence.
a rule is mandated habit.
habit is a moment of the absence of choice.
to happen becomes a happening: we remember its notation. which rule do you violate, speaking? any remembered and constructed event points at the rules which were until then true.
a choice turns the eyes in the back of it, triangulating the past which isn't.
And everything stopped at the next moment.
fall's waiting, you can tell: the moments are getting elongated.
by whom? no
one.
even habit becomes habitual. us, who languaging bulimics from allergics, discriminate intending against accident. language assails, sails, sells, sales. without our credit, the spoken word no longer discounts us.
there is no word for to accident and I am liked by it that way.
there is still no word to ask for happening.
what happened?
when did it happen?
who to?
why is this? I deserve explaining.
how?
as long as it and not observing as well as it are referential, our passive voice observer is as good as a parrot talks: parataut.
oh, for an honest machine.
even an onused machine would conduce less
dictatedly. clap for the dancing bare intuition.
my desire consequences in a splice, a sequence entangled by a non-sequitor, which will be known to have been sequential.
it is possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow and it is impossible that the sun will not rise tomorrow and this union negates at most something else. the possible, being a function of at least one history, is determined. the impossible is always that which is of no function: a human. all designing, though i continue the presumption:
Previous page | Next page
