Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:40:15 +0000
Subject: Re: gulf - michael wrote
From: michaelP <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk>


> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3131070015_227509_MIME_Part

what is called "kenneth" enabled the string of graphemes below:
 
> Michael, and i mean that particular michael that is without a particular
> michael, wrote: 
> 
> 
> "a sight without a see-er"

but also without a "seen", just a sight...
  
> hmmm, i get a sense that your 'sight without a see-er' makes even more sense
> than the sense you give it in the context you spent it on, but i can't yet
> quite make out what that sense might be, other than sensing that whatever it
> is, it is enormous, a depthless depth? a see-less see-er? a pure predicate but
> one that is masked over by forcing a subject-mask, as a leeching, onto it,
> assumed or otherwise, all as a 'familyurizing' dis.guise?? making a real(ly)
> real fiction out of a real(ly) fictional real?

I cannot make it out either :-) but what is being aimed at here is not
utterly unrelated to Jud's [the horror, the horror :-)] impassioned speech
of the thoroughly dispassionate (as yet, in advance, underlying...)
untainted-by-human-hands-or-eyes-or-Is-etc 'natural world' (stuff). That
beings just are and are without being seen or bespoken or handled (doing
their own thing-ing). Pure predication exactly, but one that is not written
or spoken, though said somehow nonetheless. Hmmm, I think I'm getting into a
huge gaping mess here...
 
> like a river - one without banks is without a river without banks?
> 
> er, no, that's not it,

feel the flow... as Heidegger once said, the banks (and thus the bridge in
its bridging the gulf, the a-cross-ing) pre-sume the river, mark it out...
but is this not an other mere human construction? The flow flows on
unconcerned with flowing or banks...
> 
> Kenneth 

michaelP 

--MS_Mac_OE_3131070015_227509_MIME_Part

HTML VERSION:

> Michael, and i mean that particular michael that is without a particular
> michael, wrote:
>
>
> "a sight without a see-er"

> hmmm, i get a sense that your 'sight without a see-er' makes even more sense
> than the sense you give it in the context you spent it on, but i can't yet
> quite make out what that sense might be, other than sensing that whatever it
> is, it is enormous, a depthless depth? a see-less see-er? a pure predicate but
> one that is masked over by forcing a subject-mask, as a leeching, onto it,
> assumed or otherwise, all as a 'familyurizing' dis.guise?? making a real(ly)
> real fiction out of a real(ly) fictional real?

> like a river - one without banks is without a river without banks?
>
> er, no, that's not it,

> Kenneth