Sunday, 2 March 2014

Between is a Bad Word

Nothing new to say. 'Cept there's no between this and that, notionally speaking. Shit's all over the place. The neuro-blitz doesn't rest on the line between social-anxiety and misanthropy, to take a personal example, if such a line exists.

Even if such a line exists, suffer this or suffer that. All along that pathway is more of the same of greater or lesser quality of this and that. What's that got to do with between? No wonder the touted solution to choose not to suffer. What a grand, if grandiose, idea!

Go with the flow; mind the gap.
Go with the flow; mind the gap.
Go with the flow; mind the gap.

Yet even torn between this and that, I'll always end up one place or the other. The place between how I imagine it will be and how it turns out to be remains stubbornly either how I imagined and/or how it turns out, not somewhere in the middle, though how it turns out is ever so briefly located between how I imagined it and what it is after it is over and done.


So, yeah, naturally, the word can give you a fairly clear idea, when trying to imagine where an event falls chronologically, that it's before and after two respective more familiar others; it is perfect for identifying the location of the middle object of three standing against a wall; and we know when they say the truth lies somewhere between two versions of events that they mean the objective version contains elements of both.

But a conceptual-between retains too much of the originals not to be flawed, let alone, as it relates to persuasion, not to be doctrinaire. Reality resides elsewhere, would necessitate a preposition other than one whose connotation being so vague, will necessarily rely too heavily on aspects of the one thing or the other, between which the thing in question is said to lie.

Moreover, I imagine the habitual use of this denotation might hinder breaking free of a perceptual paradigm fraught with predispositions that rear, for example, the conviction that politics can be repaired, that somewhere between being broken and being fixed, there's a healthy compromise, or that along the line of left and right, a desirable moderation exists.

Those two versions of what really happened, or the way it really is, do not arrange themselves with a goal post on either side; the motivations of the negotiators are represented and reinterpreted by and by way of data points of life experience too vast in quantity & location to plot on one grid.


₫-mar-kr-€-C$-¥ UPDATE:
Amongst oppositional forces (as always a mix of democrats and fascists and democratic fascists cum chambers of parliament and heads of state); "NGOs'" financial support of elements therein & there-out and their financial partners in government(s) (hence the scare-quotes) and higher-and-more tightly-chambered cooperative & de-cooperative unions & commissions & public-private partnerships without which we couldn't, like, you know, "build the roads"; the forever other side, those other Slavs, those who still want to pay their protection and those who don't and those who really don't know what the fuck they want and the overlapping monetary concerns therein & there-out & thereabouts (and let's not forget there-between); the journalists and their funding and claims to independence and "this is nothing new" and simultaneous criticism of the "this is nothing new" argument lies your broadly sprayed journalistic logorrhea of a Sunday Paper, demonstrating that there are plenty of problematic prepositions when you try to wedge them into the abstract.

Here's the link that brought that about.


Zwischen Hanna Schygulla un' 'nem Kaugummiautomat. .  .

Petersburger Straße 73, Berlin - 2014