the news is on
at six
I watched six horses
standing in the snow
at seven you
asked me
about the news
at six
horses standing in the
snow is all that I
remember
(note: the idea was that timelines for experience are irrelevent and thusly, when recollecting or experiencing anything, beginning and end is - within reasonable limits - arbitrary. You can start and finish (or not finish) where ever you please and depending on where you are when you stop to look up and try and understand something, you're bound to come up with a different view than at any other given time or place. Maybe this works? Maybe it doesn't? Maybe it's a frivolous exercise, but I refuse to accept the blame for that; any language that lets one word mean more than one thing only encourages frivolity amongst its users)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Experience is always already. As soon as you say experience or speak about experience, you are reflecting, thus are not experiencing in the Most German Sense.
Were the horses on the news? If they weren't, did you watch the news? I feel like this bit creates two parallel realities; one where you've watched the news at six and at some point six horses standing in the snow are on the screen OR one where you merely know that the news is on at six and go out and actually see horses standing in the snow at seven. Are you raising the question as to what the effective difference is? I understand that you are working with experience per se, but is there experience without something which you actually do experience? Or is actuality itself a fiction?
Your style so far is somehow reminding me of Tetris, which is awesome.
I take back my note. Somewhere I lost track of whether I was writing about memory or experience, which may have been the point in the first place...
Post a Comment