let's intellectualize for a bit|
well, really, let's over-intellectualize
Hell, let's even use punctuation and complete sentences and switch randomly between a conversational and formal-analytical tone.
So the ambiguity I was talking about before, is the same ambiguity i was talking about way before. The pulling one up pulling one down analogy and so on. Basically, the different perceptions of the sameness or differences between two interactions. Also the perceived point of intersection and interrelation between two entities that the english language would juxtapose in a binary, either/or relationship. This false binarity can be accepted, but definitely is not always, and each of about six billion of the infinite infinitely small points on the line (if you consider the relationship linear(it's probably a manymanydimensioned relationship between two entities(let's not even think about thinking about more than two) are taken to be the real true WAY THINGS ARE (capital letters used for irony , not because of time cube style insanity (really)) amongst the different humans on this earth.
The ambiguity created by the infinite different basic human truths (that we take for granted as being universal) guarantees that the ambiguity itself is, and is the only, thing we share definitely with all of our fellow human beings ('cept maybe birth/death, but even those are perceived differently amongst us, so that's pretty weak, really). Now this would make the basic human quality that links us all together the lack of understanding or, the different interpretations of all the things we recognize as symbols (iconic, or not) or, the inescapable inability to empathize with each other completely and precisely.
The attempt, which is possibly even sometimes successful, to understand and realize the incredibly complex and constantly in flux way that an other has managed to solidify and decide the meanings of everything and all of everything's inner relationships, then, is what becomes crucial. Whether conscious of it or not, this is always what is happening between us when we make contact and try to get close. The finding of similarities in the 47 dimensional lattice (47 is approximate) that is our perception of reality (Lacan would even say is our Self) as well as the attempt to understand the differences and deal with these differences; either by celebrating them, or accepting them, or hating them, or letting them change us; is all we really have. The struggle to do so is our love and our kindness and the basic human goodness that we all have, whatever other goodness we may lack.
So, really, this is a pro-humanist argument in the end really. There's not much, but there's something there that we all share. The ambiguity of perception/understanding which causes the lack of universiality, becomes itself the universal. We are all wrong and confused, and we are all right and enlightened. Both. At the exact same time. And this uncertainty/certainty links us all eternally/inthemoment as friendsloversenemiessistersbrothersfathersmotherssonsdaughtersandsoon.
Q. "holy, christ that was pretentious"
A. "it's not serious"
Q. "it's not funny, either"
A. "you missed the point, then, the humour comes from that, and from the possible seriousness"
Q. "there doesn't seem to be one"
A. "i'm sorry
i'm not gonna throw in any pretty metaphors or similes or anything poetic to make you like it, though"
Q. "they still wouldn't make me care, anyway
even the imaginary fake literary
audience can't realistically (sp?)
portrayed as giving a shit
and holy christ it was long, too"
A. "the self-referential asides and
after discussion don't help at
Q. "they remind me of sit-com actors
obviously and pathetically mugging for the
A. "well it says what i want to say"
Q. "maybe that's the problem"
A. "it's blizzarding on the second day
and there are power losses"
A. "it's cold and dark and lonely"
Q. "right now?"
A. "well, the lights are on now"
Q. "but still?"
Moi, j'avais jamais rien dit. Rien