Brief Encounter [flash fiction]

Brief Encounter

[flash fiction]


[. . .]

A crazy man speaks of his having discovered he was crazy in a world far madder than he, or so he wants to think, thus believe, know in a way other than how others know the things they say they know for certain, or so I imagine, of them and  of him; or as I think from time to time about him, remembering quite accurately everything this man has ever said.

Who is he? You ask. Who am I? I need to know when considering this man I am, was will be might have been in another time wearing another mask, the many roles I play in the world, in a series of contexts differing from one another greatly, slightly, at times I discover new men to be, I have never had the fear of being crazy that so many I have known over the time and course of my life–living has provided me with many courses to take, traveling them as I do, the morels travelled ones, you remember; has provided me with many roles play, all the world we remember, a stage, the many stages I have walked on, fretting about an hour or two or more, sometimes repeat performances, we are always acting, acting, acting; and yes with many transformations to make, take, endure–we do endure our transformations, one or another metamorphosis, yes, who can really say he is the same person today he was last week–and I am not talking about Gregor Samsa transformations, you know. Yes, no one the same today as he was last year or at any moment or string of them extending for minutes, hours days weeks months, whatever have we at our finger tips to say At that time then I was nothing like I am now.

Is it only about lessons learned, or is it otherwise something else in the metamorphosis of the being I am–what is it about being and existence that I recall from some discussions I think I could recollect having had about the distinctions between existence and being . . , what is it about my being? Firstly and lastly I have it, no? I mean, the tree outside my window exits but does it have being? No, right? I do–I have being. See what I mean? No? Of course, you do.

He said, “One does not explain all things by one thing alone, but by explaining all things by all things at once.” yes, he did when I did as I did as he does will do, he and I another wee I become. I am we as I have said before here and elsewhere, over and over saying the same things again and again. Not in time extended can anyone explain everything needing to be explained, but by explaining everything needing to be explained in pure simultaneity. Pure? What is it about anything we have we do we become we say think write paint compose that is pure? There is no purity in our being so composed of uncertain potential as it is, what do we actualize? No, I am asking. What do we?

“Adam would have needed infinite time to name infinite things,” he said. Paradise is heaven on earth? If so, then it is of eternity and does not participate in the laws of infinite space, infinite time, duration, bow do you count infinity? You cannot. Yes, infinity never comes. Infinity is never reached in time or space. Infinite time would not be enough time. No amount of time would ever come closer to infinite time. One billion to the one billionth power is no closer to infinity than one. How do we not see that infinite possibility is an avalanche waiting to bury us, as I have said before and again after that, before.

Eden was a space for eternity to exist–the walled garden where heaven on earth . . . how does Eden relate to the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem? But nevertheless, yes, Paradise in this way was heaven on earth. It is only from eternity that infinity is resolved. It is only in this way that the Incarnation of the Son of God begotten not made before time and creation could be Alpha and Omega, beginning and end at once. You do have to get this, that infinity and eternity are not synonyms, never have been. It is confusion that allows this to persist in our contemporary meaning.

I could have considered more here, no? What else could I say about existing without being–isn’t that about what the state wants from you, from me? Why am I again posing the questions of we,excepot in the ways that I am this we, right? So what is it that the new State as God wants from us? Or from whomever it might be possible to thrust this upon? Existence for people–what people? For humans? That does not amount to what being is; thus, another form of not to be comes with this existence without being. Yes, not the suicide we imagine Hamlet thinking out loud about–and is it interior monologue or soliloquy, his to be or not? They are not the same thing, you know, to be or not to be, being and becoming.  They serve separate functions, don’t they? What has utility to do with what we are talking about here. Metaphysics; Ontology; Epistemology–I remember these from Philosophy classes as an undergraduate when I thought I might want to be a Philosophy major.

I wish I had the time to make clear to you this suffering of folly or madness or something else quite synonymous in the mind of another, not so synonymous in mine–no two words share complete or absolute synonymy in every context of usage. I do not even imagine that they share anything other than a limited synonymy. What more will I say could only be completed by you, the reader–and now a new rub is introduced. You don’t think that it is interesting, at least for incidental consideration, if not ordered inquiry?

[. . .]


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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.