Writing with no truth serum

Writing with no truth serum.

Letters looking for a word, like that hacker tool trying to crack a code by getting the right letters and numbers in the right slot.

If in the beginning was the word, then probably this is before the beginning.

If you try to hear all the speech in the world each second happening at the same time, what would you hear? is the world coherent? and yet it exists!

Existing is more primary than understanding. incoherence is the primary state of the world.

But "incoherence" cannot be captured in one line or one breath. at any rate, anything we do is part of it. i am always incoherent anyway to someone else. coherence and understanding are relative, a pocket, regional, narrow circle.

Or more strongly: incoherence should mean, we really can't say what "incoherent" can mean without taking away what it should mean.

We can only do something and hope it will be incoherent. we resort to techniques or styles.

For example, the Web as a global intersection of texts. it would be a jumble, actually. but who said only one voice at a time should dominate any language event? we have had "simultaneous" texts before that tried it. i am just pushing the mashed up state further. we have so much volume of language produced nowadays with communication technology speeding everything up so well that everybody now can all talk at the same time. we know it's all about politics who gets heard first. there is a competition for air time. there is a survival of the fittest for discourses. and "truth" or "meaning" don't clinch the deal alone here.

Now if we curl up the Web into a whorl. you can't get more egalitarian than that! "text-sounds" have had its "mixes."***  We just AMP it up! In the end, the only unifying element is rhythm. regular or not? now there's a decision. i myself wouldn't bother. i think everything has its own unknown rhythm. it would be delusional to think that your self-imposed rhythm would be a hymn to some kind of order, or disorder for that matter.

***'In "Counterpoint for Candy Cohen" (1973) Mac Low explores tapetechnique possibilities even further. A single announcement of twodozen words, spoken by a concert emcee named Candy Cohen, is repeated with irregular pauses to make an initial tape which is then transferred continuously, one channel at a time, onto a four-track tape, which thus has four separate channels of non-synchronous repetition of the initial verbal material.... Then, this tape is itself transferred continuously onto each track of a two-track machine, which then has eight different tracks of the same repeated announcement. Then, this tape is transfered onto each track of the initial four-track machine which thus produces a tape with 32 tracks of sound. This fourth-generation is two-tracked into 64 tracks, which is then four-tracked into 256 tracks. As the final piece incorporates all stages in the incremental process, what we hear is the progressive complication of the initial material (two-dozen words and a pause) through several distinct generations into a verbally incomprehensible, but rhythmically pulsing chorus. The experience is extraordinary, and it is perhaps the culmination of Mac Low's interest in non-synchronous repetition' (Richard Kostelanetz, Text Sound Art : A Survey, http://www.ubu.com/papers/kostelanetz.html).