click here for previous entries
: 
7
“…like a kaleidoscope which is every now and then given a turn, society arranges successively in different orders elements which one would have supposed to be immovable, and composes a fresh pattern.”
–Marcel Proust, Within a Budding Grove–
Boy meets girl. Man, Woman. Husband, Wife. Father, Mother. Produces the child, a child, children.
Pieces shake out of joint.
Father. Husband. Man. Girl. Woman. Boy. Produces the child, a child, children.
Arranges different order.
Husband meets girl. Man, Woman. Husband, Wife. Mother, Father. Mother. Produces the child, a child, children.
Jumble and collide, slide over.
Girl meets boy. Man. Husband. Father. Woman. Husband. Wife. Mother. Mother. Child, child, children. Produces none. Adds three.
Kaleidoscopes fresh patterns.
Husband, Wife. Men. Women. Father. Father. Mother. Mother. Mother. Child. Child. Child. Child. Child. Child. Child. (Children).
Many is the new unit. Same – the new variety. Names – the faulty designators.
Fall the doctrines of origin and cause. The sense belong. The myths of ontology. Infinite regress. Unlimited semiotics.
Turn the scope, altering view – collage is the new entire. Copy – the new original. Fragment – the new whole.
Child. Child. Child. and Child. Child. Child. Child. “belonging” now to Father-Mother. Father. Mother-Mother. Mother-Father.
Fresh pattern.
By steps and halves and partnerships; alliances and circumstance and blood.
Arithmetic of variables multiplied by chance and power.
Now Mo3 + M3 = 2 + 2 + 3.5 or F3 + W3 = 2(-1/2) + 2(-1/2) + 3-1 where Mo=mother (Mo1, Mo2, Mo3, Mo4), M = man (F=father, W=wife, H=husband, and so forth-1 once removed).
The scraggly male through one variable and nonsymmetrical equation would be F2×2(+3/.5)H3M? for W3/C2+C2+1/2C3 or Father of C=biological children 4 times via 2 sets with 3 additional ½-children by marriage to W3 (third wife) which man or woman they are for one another is an n = unknown variable.
A physicist might be able to map this new arrangement, fresh patterning of conventionality: the family by strands of blood and webbed relations multiplying, bending and stretching (read: re-signifying) concept terms and nouns of relation such as brother, sister, mother, father, spouse &/or partner.
All in variable contexts. Involves Theory of Complexity. Without mastery or solutions. No absolutes. Arbitrary forms actively adapting. No truths. A world of half-breeds and bastards. Infinite regress. Anomaly.
=
Polysemic Stupor 
Strange we have a notion of the past as less complex, when all the evidence suggests little difference, except maybe a lack of longevity by all parties. Genealogy is full of dark deeds, black sheep, runaways, cuckolds, step mothers ( evil or not). And some cultures -many actually, would trade children as hostages, debt repayments, credit. The formulae today in the urban West may even be the most straightforward it has ever been.
it does feel the representational formulae might be getting more descriptive than prescriptive?
I was never comfortable with maths.
neither me – but they’re kind of fun making up
Put down Getrude Stein and read the back of your hand upon which is writen the cloud atlas of your soul. Fun piece, so nonsensical like reading something Enstien wrote on the chalk board and I am the janitor erasing it because it is so incomprehensible but then a little boy walks up and says hey mister I wouldn’t do that, he just explained the laws of the universe.
Woooo! Clever.
thank you?
“clever” can be a troubling assessment
was fun to do as well – i can get pretty discombobulated in the family tree(s)
From me, in this instance, it is an emphatic applause. Very original and awesome. Clever in the best of senses!
thank you 🙂