I think a full thought is a better note unit.
You can only know the individual text from the full thought. Context is consciousness
As soon as the consciousness is removed from the picture, the text loses meaning. The individual text separate from the whole thought is only meaningful as a prompt, but to be understood truly, it has to be a portal to be a full state of mind.
Self-Responses
1st Layer:
- So a shell is only as meaningful as it refers to a particular complex of a unique moment of consciousness?
- So they don’t want to be a dictionary? Or to be more specific, a web of experiences as separate from the terms used to describe them rather than a web of experiences and terms as one conjoined creature
- So they believe in the ten million “dog”
- But a purist may argue that one can easily have a note for each dog and for each insight or self-response within the sub-web created for a given particular dog, and it is not that the author is disagreeing with that either. It may be that the author is saying that the words used for each dog is reserved for each dog and that meaning and the terms used are emergent within the context of that note in the form of a full thought or state of mind at the time that it was written.
- This is local ugly vs. global line-sized.
2nd Layer:
- I can’t tell if they’re advocating for what they believe in or not anymore. Why call it “ugly”?
- “I don’t believe in the words. I believe in the thought behind the words and the person who lived them and what they seek to express in the conjoinment through it all and thus gain meaning from that, the reader as co-creator, the author as password-keeper.”
- The words are only one half of the picture. The other half is what we don’t see. It’s what we see in the conjoinment, not in the words-as-separate themselves. The words represent a disgusting bastardization of one’s inherent mean-to-say. So a text can only at best be a prompt or try its best to depict as honestly as possible the inherent mean-to-say in all its full-thought ugly glory.
- Words-as-separate is like killing a man, and saying “I’ve resurrected him.” Death may have been Jesus’ Legacy, but It was His Life that Completed His Death.
- Postmodernism uses a song for a completely different context from the context it had when it was first made, and that is valid. Nevertheless, I am not arguing against that. Take my text, bury it, throw it around, combine it with the earth. Show it to the world, remix it, play with it, show me that the word is never the final say and not anything at all with which to associate. It is merely a lather of signs like the bath one has. The ritual, phenomenology, and cleanness and all are what are important, not the bath itself as un-anthropological, un-relational, since we cannot access it anyway, save for in our dialectical logic, which is separate from text itself. This separation makes text look even worse.
- Writing has always been planned obsolescence even as it is perfectly permanent. This being obsolete does not make it impermanent or irrelevant. It merely means that no one is implicated in the text. It is a suggestion, a prompt, an arrangement of words that gestures to a convincing idea or argument. It is not an in-thing. It acts out of the good hearts and minds of humans who feed off the world and the logic which we choose out of all of it.
- It is the act of writing, not the text itself, that determines the text.
3rd Layer:
- how can you be both dialectical and phenomenological? you believe in the primacy of experience while believing that there is a trustable logic?
- That does not mean they hate writing itself right?
- But they enjoy writing right now!
- They love responding to themselves as well? Why? Is it because this is what they enjoy? This capitalizes on the act of writing itself?