Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:01:02 +0000
Subject: Re: 'art of gloss glossing the gloss


> 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_3130142462_1391554_MIME_Part

Kenneth sprach:

> well, maybe he truly is revealing what's already in front of you, but it's
> more than just your own existence which this revealing is for and which
> touchs on the constitution of existence itself as the outside, as the
> universal subject, and which can itself only be touched by - - -
> 
> the revelation of revelation itself? the act behind the act?

sorry for butting in on your rap with Malcom, Kenneth, but, could we glimpse
{touch?} being as the revelation(i) of the revelation(ii)? but with the
revelation(i) that reveals revelation(ii) as a revealing (rather than, yet
again, some thing {being} else revealed); the being of revelation then
be-comes the revelation of (the) being (of revelation); and, of course
(whoops), be-ing [is] gloss-ing/reveal-ing; the '-ings' br.ing [sic] time's
temporality into this infinitesimally thin curving cusp of the cleavage in
being that language says... {thus in a similar fashion, be-ing can come
a-cross in its linguistic home as the gloss-ing of the gloss}

oh, and need there be a "behind" in "the act behind the act"? praps, rather,
the act-ing of the act (the act and its acting {itself out} be-long in the
same, in the same sense that the rain and the raining of the rain belong in
the same...); is not this what the gentle nietzsche intimates when he
demolishes the 'apparent world' in the same cleansing breath as the 'real
world' -->> because an appearance is an appearing of some thing not (yet)
apparent, and when there are only appearances as such, then there is no
appearing (since nothing can appear as the hidden/coded appearance of
something (real) now demolished, thus (phew!) it is not possible to have
nothing but appearances, a shimmer of surfaces.... BUT, what remains when
both the real and the apparent worlds are vanished?

enough already again yet

michaelP


--MS_Mac_OE_3130142462_1391554_MIME_Part

HTML VERSION:

> well, maybe he truly is revealing what's already in front of you, but it's
> more than just your own existence which this revealing is for and which
> touchs on the constitution of existence itself as the outside, as the
> universal subject, and which can itself only be touched by - - -
>
> the revelation of revelation itself? the act behind the act?