Scott.
Shave a leg and the hair grows back. Cut off a foreskin and it never grows back. I think these are two completely different things, circumcision and leg-hair shaving. I like shaved legs on a women (or man), like I like a shaved face on a man (or woman.) I think "stashbians" are the lowest form of life. Fact is, It feels good to shave, it is cleansing as it takes off the dead skin. Get rid of the deadness! Shaving is like being reborn.
The foreskin, however, is not dead. It is vital, perhaps even the most. Perhaps it is the fourth eye, a universal infinity catcher in half!
Further - scott.
When I speak of disliking the visual arts, I speak of a dislike that is twofold. It is first, an attempt at a better understanding describable life, it is a slow race to save what is human as a safeguarding of the mental stability of society's weaker life-points. (Out of these weak-points is born violence, suffering, tyranny and un-understanding - all, mind you, are certanties)
And second it is an attempt at maintaining the 'question' first, that is the mind of man. Remember that I am asking
(see below about noise) us to try and make what is communicated, what was before ignored, or incommunicable, by means of shifting the information outside of the willed product and toward what it "certainly" isn't.
Humans have concocted an intellectual foundation which progressively moves toward radical denial of "the human" (including the human process of concocting ideology). As we march out of the swamp of superstition, we learn that the superstition from which we have to be torn is we ourselves. The enemy which has to be eradicated is ourselves.
From
Henry Flynt, PERSON-WORLD THEORY
If I tell you that I am in a fire, don't help me - because as long as I say I am in a fire, I certainly am. If I say I am not in a fire - I will never burn.
This twofold process must be 'seen' to be attempt to an end 'visuality' not as a symbol of beauty or nature or witness but as it can be a mirror image, or the invocation of possible certainty. It is an attempt to take away from the small percentages of those doing visual work, the potency of their porduct of forcing certainty on the weakest areas of society's life connections. (See tabloids and their effect on those who are certain)
Reading is an act associated with identity, subject to object to subject. This period of identity is one of the weakest in the life-connections of man. This I why and where I believe visuality creeps into the pastures of perfectly undecided man, who weakly attempts to identify itself. Now if our little life sees a picture of a nice space, neat color or tidy haircut, it (the life) will identify itself with the certainty of the viewing during the particular identifying. It becomes certain, and at that moment creates negative space of overriding the true reality of allness.
I understand that it is madness to try and stop visuality in reading, but I believe that it is possible to try and avoid the dangers through two steps:
1) All representations of man as man should be quelled.
This mostly includes video, photography and any possible ultra-realistic painting, print-making. We don't know what we are, and therefore we should never be made certain that we are what we are merely capable of reproducing through technological mirror-making techniques.
2) If representation of man is to continue, it must be subdued by means of creating an idea of "every-representation," such that it is actual that "every-representation" exists and exists for life to identify itself as.
This will allow man to quickly and perhaps finally come to the idea that he is NOT who he is, as uncertainty is primary, and therefore can be all.
In the end we should save the allness, by understanding the reality of the incommunicable state. And remember to never shave using a mirror!!
Space is merely the form of outer intuition; it is not a real object which can be outwardly intuited; it is not a correlate of the appearances, but the form of the appearances themselves. And since space is thus no object but only the form of possible objects, it cannot be regarded as something absolute in itself that determines the existence of things.
From
Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, On the Antimonies
