almost a year ago this well ran not so much dry as afoul of summer. i disapperated to aspen, and returned to massachusetts for a month of failed attempts at making a movie about underage sex and murder. shortly thereafter, i relocated to the westerly culture cap of our great nation, and since then it is my belief that close proximity with mavis has squashed our desire to communicate in blog form. but perhaps this silence hastretched long enough. perhaps the horse is ready to be got back up upon. now that i work three days aweek instead of 6, i think it likely that some words may flow again, carving more depth into this small tributary of webwork.
but all this by way of elaborate reintroduction. the truth is, i have nothing to say. i'm bored with social security like the rest of the nation, i'm worried about iraq but there seems to be little i can do from a position of english speaking residence halfway accross the globe, i'm talking about videogames over at videogameon.net, and as of yet i know shit about california politics.
the only topics lefto me, it would seem, are those beyond knowledge and somehow more fundamental. the questions anyone can ask given time and air. the ponderances we are all free to make with as many or as few letters as befit our interest.
here is a brief one, before i attempt a sleep.
the universe is absurd, or infinitely explicable. to wit:
the universe cannot have not begun, since it is here. but the universe cannot have begun from nothing, since all events must be preceeded by stimulus. motion must give rise to motion, but cannot do so without impetus of its own.
so either a) the universe began from nothing, for no reason, rendering the whole affair fundamentaly absurd
or b) the universe is eternal, and why chains are infinitely answerable, just not necessarily by us.
i find the second option more comforting, but the first more fun. and yet, perhaps to pursue the infinite answers promised in b, would result in a state of absurdity, like a dog chasing after his tail for the duration of his lifetime. if so, our only escape from absurdity, if we desire such escape, is to ignore the questions at somepoint, and simply know that the answers exist.
to be fair to the loonies, some claim that c) the universe does not exist at all. i refer them to their claim as evidence of their existence, and, by extension, the existence of a universe.
as a final thought, though it is an imperfect metaphor (as all must be when attempting to describe the sum of existence), imagine a glass globe filled with water and oil, moving at a neverchanged, inherent rate of rotation. the liquids and the motion together ensure continued change throughout the sphere, never ceasing, never begining. will the relative positions of the liquids be eternally random? a neverending string of different configuration? or will a point of pattern be reached, somewhere in the vast distances of time, from which the entire process will self-replicate, rendering the motion, in a way, a stasis?
is this where life becomes death?