Tuesday, July 7, 2009

A Humble Proposition: A Theory of Itself: A Call for Dialogue

The importance of what I'm about to say here lies, it seems to me, in its refusal to be denied. That is, if we are to accept its importance, we must first admit its importance, and thereby accept its reality. It is real, it seems to me, which is why, in order for it to flourish, we must not deny that it is real. To do so would only encourage its deniability, a quality we have already established it does not have. Furthermore, if we are to learn from this, we must not shy away from what it means. Namely, that its importance is vital to our understanding of it, and that our understanding of it is vital to its importance. Lest you doubt the validity of this proposition, let me state that what I'm saying is undeniable. This quality, having been clearly and irrefutably established, cannot be denied its importance. Any attempt at such a denial would only prove its truth, which proof would thereby and furthermore prove its importance. Not only can its importance not be denied, the proof of itself and the proof of its importance are inseparable. Any attempt at separation would only serve as evidence that separation is impossible. It is just this form of denial that has been attempted countless times in the past to no avail. If we are to move forward, we must refrain from not advancing. We must avail ourselves of everything it has to offer, not least of which is its proven quality of undeniability. This quality will sustain it far into the future, regardless of any attempt to refute it.

The question is, now that its importance, its undeniability, the undeniability of its importance, and the importance of its undeniability have all been proven, we must ask ourselves, where do we go from here? Do we stay where we are, or do we do something different? Do we remain in this condition, or do we change? Do we refrain from alteration, or do we avoid standing still? These questions can only be answered if we take a look at why such questions are necessary. First, it is undeniable that these questions are essential. Their essentiality lies, it seems to me, in their necessity, which in turn is the source of their importance. This may be obvious enough, but what may not be immediately clear at first glance is that the necessity of their importance lies not in their essentiality alone, but in their undeniability. From here we can safely assume that such undeniability is itself undeniable, a quality which sets it apart and serves as evidence of its own undeniable necessity. Secondly, these questions must be asked now because now, more than ever, is when these questions are critical. No progress can be made until these questions have been reckoned with, and their time, our time, of reckoning is at hand. Of this there can be no denial, and insofar as these questions can be answered, the answers will prove the questions. It is only by exploring these questions that we may be assured of the validity of their answers. To deny ourselves this exploration would be to do deny the essentiality of these questions. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Furthermore, proof of this importance cannot be denied, nor can be denied the importance of the essentiality of the proof of this importance. Finally, what we seek is not merely proof of these questions' undeniability, but proof that our search for this proof is not merely essential but also undeniably irrefutable.

Now then, as I have just demonstrated, there is much to be learned from what I have just demonstrated. It will be up to others to fully realize the importance of this, but that others will inevitably do so cannot be denied. To deny this would be to deny the importance of this, and to deny the importance of this would be to deny its own inherent undeniability, the evidence of which, in the face of what we can now see to be true, cannot be denied.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

3 comments:

  1. i used to devalue dialogue, until i realized it helped me get at my core issue, which is the disconnect between people. i love sculpting dialogue, especially in competition with narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I unequivocally deny the importance of this, some major equivocations nothwithstanding, which may or may not be revealed at a later time--or an earlier time if I find anachronistic resistance within my own corpus--or corpse--or copse--of writing.

    However, I also love it.

    In this, it is like my life--or likeness--or lifelikeness.

    This is my passive-aggressive way of saying with all due respect and noblesse oblige and "regulation" body armor of only 1.38 millimeter thickness, "It's on like Rostov-on-Don!*"


    *Nobody knows what this means but a dead minor character in a largely dead novel by a dead Russian novelist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. True enough, I concede. But although true, your unequivocal equivocations are nevertheless not without their faults. Still, their merits are, I concede, not wholly deniable. Kudos, and thank you for investing in the conversation. This is how we move forward.

    ReplyDelete