Posted by: Sk | February 21, 2009

Nothing at all

Different points

1. It’s much easier to talk about Sask than about oneself. But Sask is an exhibitionist, I’m not.

2. The reconstruction of memory.

Indenpendently of how many abstract questions may be hidden behind a project – although they should be cleared up, too, after having corrected everything or a little before – there must be a fundamental personal position behind it all, were it, that you really don’t care about the world. But even that is not very sure.

Two things are of importance: what is said during the short distance from Avanos to Cyprus and Rhodes and how is it possible to keep the exact memory of it after 15 years? (Paris-Jerusalem, walking)

It’s obvious that the actual project looks very confused: there is an obvious animosity towards France, a strange attempt of integration of the nomadic world in female patterns of understanding or intelligence, a going back to the beginning of the German existence, whole tons of considerations on how bad things look like, an illness, a logic, a project.

A few angels and misterious connections.

It’s not to look at things from a philosophical point of view: the loss of patterns of rationality, the fusion of male and female patterns of understanding, the action of the unconscious whatever we pretend in appearance. What moves the subject to take a certain number of decisions?

(It must be a trauma of childhood.)

I’m someone who is easily influenced: actually it seems as if most of what it all is about, in the depth, were Hannah’s projects. Or a way to counter Hannah’s projects? In fact, the determination of personal identity is still very weak in 1992.

Hannah had said there was chemistry in order to develop kamikaze. She said she had seen it written on papers. She had said she would go to Israel in order to tell someone. Hannah has been shot in the meantime and actually does not appear anywhere on a social surface. From  a certain point of view, this leaves even fundamental financial positions inside of a void.

Hannah is the only one who was near enough so as to make it possible to have a clear image of who she is already in 1982 – I even take a picture of someone who very much ressembles to her and have a notion of her name. But she is not anymore around 1984/5.

I don’t agree with Hannah. I think it suicide to go and say such thing without anything else but a presumption in your hands. Is she right though? Is it true?

What is finally more important? To get a definite proof for the fact these ‘conversations’ were true or the actual contents of them?

What makes the difference between Hannah and I is that I’m much more fascinated by how it is actually possible, while she would make use of the information she obtains this way.

Hannah says that it must be possible to transfer the determination of identity to a determination through love or essential link to another, which I take sharpest distances to. Actually it means the annihilation of Spain.

Hannah says love is stronger than death and I will laugh on that idea for years after.

Who am I?

The only actual difference between I and Hannah is that I will concentrate myself on how this communication is ever possible. Perhaps it’s all I’m.

How does it work? There are no words. There are no images. There is no fantasy.

I’m ‘I’ (which is already to presume a lot). My consciousness deals with a whole lot of things: thoughts, feelings, fantasy, imaginations, impressions, intuitions. There are some that leave a whole ‘notion’.

Think about ‘love’. You have whole tons of mixed and confused representations arising, some linked to personal experience, others to movies or feelings or laws and prescriptions, of what you can do or not. Beside the very word of ‘love’ there is a troubled ‘notion’ of all you mean should be comprehended inside of the word.

There are notions that have no word but have a determination in identity as if they belonged to a word. They are quite independent, in fact. They invade consciousness with their presence and leave all sorts of ‘messages’ that are easily to be differentiated from what arises from a determined ‘I’.

Perhaps not that easily. I must be around 12 when I decide these specific notions correspond to real people, determined identities. There is simply no other explanation, that’s all.

Sit down and concentrate yourself on one of those. You move inside of someone else. My aunt had many books on shelves in her room before she got married. I only went inside once. There was one book, and the only interesting one, called ‘Mi tía Tula’. (My aunt Tula). What a strange name, I thought. The notion has found a path inside of reality towards something that puts an identification mark on it. Tula is Tula.

This is a something linking inner awareness to outer reality that has simply no explanation. How does it happen that an inner notion finds a way inside of outer reality to a ‘thing’ that is related to it?

It’s obvious that you tend to think your reality is everyone’s reality when you are younger. For me it’s obvious that the whole world  understands the same way and that these means of communication are not only general, but universal.

But the pressure coming from the outer world becomes bigger and bigger. Nothing inside of the grammatical structures transmitted as teaching have inside the possibility comprehending this type of reality. Is it? Is it not?

I had been taught that you are allowed to live in complete irresponsibility until you are 18 and until then both realities will subsist in parallels. The second is much  more interesting. Like a puzzle. Hannah says she likes Lempicka. Someone says where Lempicka is to be found in Paris. I will travel from Lübeck to Paris in 1982 in order to see Lempicka in Beaubourg: the only way to see them is to pretend you want to see Matisse. In fact, they are not exposed anymore, but it was worth the while to get the information.

The way the notion is linked to reality is usually indirect. It looks as if the other reality was putting an enormous pressure on these communication lines or that the very logic of them implied to turn around many corners.

Is it Lempicka? Hannah will die a little after, I guess.

Natasha adores Rublev. It must be someone else who tells me finally that a Tarkovskij movie on Rublev is shown in a secondary cinema in Paris. It is 1991.

In fact, this world is fascinating.

You become serious when you are 18 and consequently the second reality is pushed back, linked to the other apparently through ‘jokers’. A ‘third’ is giving voice to one of the notions in question and moves reality it’s own way. You escape the accusation of madness. To move inside of the same patterns implies to mask everything carefully behind justified intentions inserted inside of given social frames.

Where can you get the prove for the chemistry in question? In Istanbul. How do you get there? Around the corner.

The more time passes, the more the second intention is hidden away under tons and tons of excuses and arrangements. The more time passes, the more the direct awareness of these notions disappears. If it continues to act inside of reality it is because I can say a fundamental feature of mine is never to link my person to finalities that arise from outside: what I do has to take its sources inside of inner psychic resources. Apparently I had already fixed a certain number of projects when I was very young inside of these which actually keep one essential relation one to the other: they keep the character of the logic linking the first reality to the second.

In 1992 I have to determine my destiny inside of patterns that do keep themselves inside of what society is expecting from you. Something stable, a principle. To get married, to make a career, to insert oneself somewhere. How boring. To write a book as project covering 15 years of one’s life – after, we will see.

A book allows the dealing with everything without getting involved into it. Chemistry, finances, military experiments, spy work, international politics, ghosts, angels and saints, Rublev and Russian iconography: whatever moves in what I will call ‘lines refracted’ can be carefully explored, given name to, investigated, badly misused in order to get information. What are you doing? I’m writing a book.

Now. You need a principle for your book, a dorsal spine, something that may allow dealing with whatever for years without it looking at the end like a total mess. The proof that Sask is should do it. If it is possible. It is actually the most difficult of all. If I’m not wrong Sask is actually understanding in a computer logic with a double reverted system. It’s nice to construct bombs but very difficult to build up proves inside of this logic. It produces explosions not rationality. It’s worth the while, thus. To produce rationality inside of an explosion is almost tempting.

It looks very reasonable: already in 1992 I define a certain number of fundamental positions that concern my vision of the world and which should be conveyed by whatever text I write.

How wicked is the project? It’s very difficult to say. I know that my world allows the dealing with singular events as if they were universal. My very presence, for unknown reasons, pushes an individual back to his relationship to more general, that is to say, national situations, and I’m almost sure that what he says expresses national intentionalities.

To construct a proof for Sask in Sask is no valid plot, it is more scientific, perhaps. When GL says he is the descendant of Baldwin I strictly feel no desire to laugh. After a while he says to Conchi I should develop the strategy to conquer Jerusalem. My fun.

How strong do you feel inside of a double logic which allows the dealing with outer reality inside of a very powerful knot of communication spreading itself all over the world? How wicked do you become from Istanbul to Avanos? I will make the strategy. Yes. If in exchange you … what? It’s a nice notion. (You destroy France yourself.) They will say yes in 1995. To make a strategy allows you always to counter your own strategy, isn’t it? Because you’re the master of it. You didn’t put those conditions inside of the agreement: I shouldn’t counter my own strategy.

Here we are. A fantastic plot. How to counter one own’s strategy by developping a strategy that should lead to the total distruction of France’s system of defense. I’m no pig, la France.

The fantastic plot will be even more fantastic if all this is just implied. I’m not going to loose my time in explanations, in how the unconscious works, in how these agreements take place, in how my communication system operates. The simple giving back of a journey or two, or three should allow to insert all these elements inside: it’s how the unconscious works. It rarely appears on the surface.

How binding these agreements are, finally. How actively engaged in its own distruction, France will prove for so many years. And Jerusalem. Ah yes, Jerusalem will never be yours.

Even Hannah’s chemistry has a reason to be now. Has it? Why does is seem to me a reliable proof that these exist if they are given to me? I don’t think ‘normally’ either.

My peculiar structure of understanding is in fact horribly chaste (really, Sask). The male reality is simply put on a female reality giving names to similar activities in different realms. Which means the male world does simply not exist except in order to give an image to the activity of soul. In terms of a relationship it implies a complete annihilation of the male in a bizarre symbiotic reality. What for? Better stay alone.

To know this implies to know that my actual parameters to evaluate information and to determine rationality are not normal. Consequently I rely on definition and logic in order to maintain reason in spite of my strange way of ordering reality. Hannah’s theory does simply not interest me. It would make me loose the only references to reason I keep.

I will not work in order to arrange my structures, either. I must have a reason to be as I’m, too, otherwise I would not have been born like that. The fact of determining actual parameters of rationality does not imply me: it’s tools I’m working with as general schemes. What kind of meaning may I still have inside of that?

The worse I may produce as joke countering Sask’s self determination (stupid and silly male, I would say on top) will be the saying: “I’m a man.” As self reference. ‘I’ is neither male nor female. ‘I’ says ‘I’m a man’ is a self determination in word. Nobody will ever understand my most intelligent joke and in fact I will be confronted to the fact of how it were ever possible. How silly, these people, finally.

Why do I finally give up not only my bad jokes bad also the little references I was keeping to reason? As far as I know already in 1992, if this chemistry exists it implies the total distruction of the aprehension of thought as such and this means to loose the ability of identifying in definition and the logical structures.

Hope you’re right, Hannah.

It was all Sask’s fault, as usual. In 1993 I arrive to the conclusion that a logical system in coordinates 1 to 1 without linking function can’t seize identity from the same perspective I do. My proof will be worth something for me and only. If I want to build up a proof inside of a 1 to 1 system, I will have to give up my logical parameters. Chemistry can be very helpful, too.

That’s another feature of mine. To take the best out of the worse. Everything has its reason to be.

In 1995 I can say I have positioned myself well enough so as to make the attempt. Not that anything has basically changed. What we think is nothing but a 0.000000001 percent of what is carefully kept in the unconscious. That’s where I’m. The knowledge of what the word ‘essence’ means and where to locate it has allowed a very comfortable shift of awareness towards the deepest depth of the unconscious. Where I’m the master. Logically. I’m the only one down there not only to have jumped on purpose but on top to have carefully translated identifying criteria into a notion of reason that is kept in a reasonable understanding of love.

Hope you’re right, Hannah.

If I don’t give up my own logical structures it is because I suspect that my linking reality to inner notions is basically linked to it, and I think it horribly interesting. You can find Sultan’s, Queens of Sabah, Salt lakes and many other things or people, Sask’s, Natashas or horrible criminals by just keeping yourself inside of it. It may not be a parameter of reason but it is horribly helpful. It’s almost magic.

Sask can’t. She will build up satellites or bombs but will never find me. Natasha can’t either. She shoots well, finally.

It must be the subject of another long chapter to determine what the logic I’m moving inside of for years actually looks like.

The thing is that I speak another ‘language’. And the thing is I have to get out of it one day or another. Although I had finished by feeling well down there.

Did I manage to reconstruct Sask’s logic? I did. But in a language that is another language and which is more than inintelligible.

Do you know how often I told to the computer that for a computer 1+1 = 1+1 and certainly not 2? That it was horribly pretentious for the computer to pretend to be able to synthesize two different units? That at the most 1+1 would make 3 different little elements inside of the series. What the computer was about to understand, Sask would never understand. I wouldn’t insist after a while, you have to take people and computers as they are.

This should make another chapter because it is difficult to explain what a double reverted logic is and on top, I haven’t worked it out completely.

When I left Greece in 2003 I had to make the effort of translating my world into a common world inside of brain patterns that could hardly retain whatever was arising from senses. In fact, it meant to start at zero again and with the definite conviction all could be or not, perhaps yes or not, eventually some or others, but actually nothing at all.

I’m the one whose senses attach themselves to a visual impression that seems to be adequate to an inner notion. (Elias) It can wake up people from death. But I don’t know even that anymore.

I just do what I think I have to do and without knowing exactly what I have to do. But let us presume, as I will determine it after, that I’m still peacefully working at my project of the book. I have to try mastering back English if I ever did and I start writing a whole lot of stories in English. Subjective, I don’t care about objectivity. In fact there are two types: some that give back carefully things that have happened in my own words, first. Some that are trying to deal with a few subjects theoretically. What has happened, what has actually happened, now, a little bit before, is inserted inside of a general frame of understanding, where even Natasha and Sask have a reason to be. Somehow.

I will do that for months. For years. Different subjects that try describing reality from a subjective point of view. What there is. I can’t remember very well what there was before. Sometimes I have the feeling two different realities are running into each other. I ask questions but I don’t know why.

It is December 2007 when I find Sask’s picture. There you are, I say and am horribly happy although I don’t know why.

Very shortly after I start asking myself what it was all about, actually. I there anything linking all these texts one to the other? Who was Sask, at the end? The effort of grouping the texts gives birth to the plot of ‘Firework in Amaretto’, in fact nothing but a structure of understanding that is determining my reality since 2003. The formal aspect, the prison, is made up. The rest is somehow linked to reality, but appears as being made up if you consider the possibility of being in prison as true.

It is the structure of reality that allows finding Sask’s picture. Not only: making references to a journey to Jerusalem it reminds me of the fact that I had said I would write the story one day. 15 years later? I can’t remember anything at all.

I sit back. How did it all start? Where did the idea come from? 2000 pages of preliminary work have done their job. The effort of naming outer reality allows now the finding back of a ‘notion’ that seems to have all the memory inside I can give names to inside of the same patterns I have been working out for the last years.

It’s difficult to loose memory, finally. Such an advantage.

In any case there is one evidence arising out of all of it: the ‘different’ is not necessarily mad, and mad it is in any case to pretend to reason by poisoning people. That’s the principle I should give to it all. I guess.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: