Exit Ingress I

The sky lay flat in an ill-appointed place. There, or somewhere in the vicinity, E had been wandering about through the vast sheets of light taken in via Es gaze, neither hidden nor veiled, Es eye shifting, hither thither, so as to canvass the extent of the void about him. Ill-appointed, E muttered, Es feet rising to fall and falling to rise, and this incessantly in what E elected to call a spherical action, one that E himself could only name as a form of common motion, so as to be done with it, though E never was, Es feet somehow given over to the rising and falling there where Es foot, neither left nor right, had hitherto never treaded before. Outstretching rearward of him, a mass of grey lay strewn upon Es footfalls, below Es shadow thin. Ill-appointed, E muttered on a wave of misgivings, the thrust of which pushed reason farther from Es heel.

That which E best understood, E understood poorly. After Es own fashion E was out wandering. We must contain this, and be content with our lot. Period. Lost are both the hour and location; and of that loss, all suffering too is amiss. This seems to be conclusive: E was meandering after Es own fashion, gliding, E claims, a body gliding along if not perambulating fluidly on the heels of some or other motion; E was out wandering. Of this, E made a claim to be certain. Cobbled in together with the full complement of Es usual accoutrements, E was elsewhere. This was his claim. Of this E claimed to be confident; confident E was, at the time of the claim, confident that wandering had been the chief activity underway, then, that is to say at the instant it happened. E merely wandering, E said, reason unreeling further and further behind him, outstretched in a mass of grey, the ancient sky prone, flat beneath Es feet.

Long it was in coming. Es claim has since mitigated. Es tone, less pointed. The quality of the matter less than little that might qualify the claim as formal. Thus informally more conclusive. Officially unsure, E certainly inexact. Of Es former confidence, misgivings now grieve death uncertain. This too wears doubtful. For Es footfalls fell somewhere out there, if E, bolt upright, was on Es feet having a wander somewhere beyond the keyhole. But nothing appears to prove this claim or disprove any other.

E: an itinerant walking off the day on the heels of wander. E, the foot of whom fell for no formal reason, not the smallest relic would enshrine a fact, apart from Es word; apart from what E himself called hard evidence – to claim what, of which now seems certain?; confident E was – of himself included – now less hard on the fact of his former footing is Es reason, having fallen further out, farther behind, further still from him, E is somewhat softer on Es claim to evidence.

We can, then, advance this: A body, merely wandering in a deambulatory motion, neither shifting formally toward a shrine, nor gliding informally without grounds for no reason. Simply gliding, E claims, without a firm hold on unreasonable ground. Although E claims that motion often leads him, for E wanders about frequently, E cannot be of a more specific tone apropos the agency of that claim – of being led by this or that motion, common or uncommon, uncommonly common or commonly uncommon. Unknown.

Question: Is the motion that is said to give E transport, that is to say offer transport to Es limbs, one that rises of its own doing? An elastic fluid, like gas, airlike: is it a motion that ascends from within Es formal envelope, from the hidden folds beneath the crust? Or is this motion that is said to impel E onward, one that somehow presses at Es bodily form, beckoning him from without, drumming against Es envelope – like one might strike, repeatedly, any natural organ, of skin or parchment stretched over an opening? Is it a motion, common or uncommon, that would drum behind Es knees, pummel beneath Es feet, and beat, if not goad at Es back – compelling him thus to venture on, somehow, propelling him, hither thither, to and fro, bobbing at him from somewhere in the air contiguous to Es collar, prodding him from the adjoining pockets of Es acoustic space – vast and void? If so, this form of motion might be said to tip him forward, though neither elegantly, nor with unbidden force, it might be said to knuckle him on, tap-tap-tapping him without any fixed consideration perhaps, (who knows?), thus tilting Es forehead toward the angle of its own particular inclination, whereby E, his body tipping from angle to angle, would feel himself tugged forward, his form leaning into and slanting through the motion that somehow would marshal him weight on, piecemeal, to a tireless tempo of the oblique penchant, beckoning E to slope on via incremental inclinations, one after the next, like a blind dot to dot drawing E toward the end, if you will, onward and into the gravity of the immediate moment, gradient to slope, E himself incessantly ushered from this particular point to the next precise place of each successive motion, and on and through the following movement into and on through the subsequent, ebbed onward and thus turned toward nothing of which E himself would claim to be even half-certain, neither E – of Es own directed motion – nor E – of the source of the said impulsion that would appear to steer him via the whereabouts of this claimed and seemingly cooperative transport via motion? So: it is an uncommonly common motion within him or a motion commonly uncommon to movement from without? Which motion shall it be? One from within: an elastic gas-like motion, a pall of motion, say, bearing him on from within. Or one from without: an elementary drumming, like the motion of percussion on parchment, say, if not a percussive goading. Or neither, nor? Or both? Or something quit different from the two, some other form of motion, say, unlike gas or percussion? And toward what endpoint does the motion lean him, for to his footfalls having fallen he has made a formal claim? Of all the claims made – confused and fustigated, blackballed and forgotten, ribald and incensed – this matter is the most uncertain. Whence and to what end is this call to motion?

The exact agency of this supposed motion, of Es transport into movement, comes to us no clearer, indeed to us neither does it come nor from us does it shift. We, oh Lambert, merely mediate its absence through speculative dialogue, trusting that the motion will not shy away from our shared efforts. Of nothing, alas, are we less certain.

E himself claims to have no understanding of the origins of the impulsion that is claimed to affect his wandering motion. None. Ipso facto. Forward nada. Insomuch, E is wholly inept to willingly ascribe a cause – given the uncertain context of his reasoning grounds – and moreover to attribute whatsoever a grey reason to Es own gliding motion. If Es bodily movement, of limb and foot, from heel to toe and toe to footfall is to be attributed to another cause of motion, that is to say to an unnamed form of an unnamed motion, a motion that neither the displacement of Es feet nor the resistance of the friction beneath them would know, so as to declaim as known, and thus adequately name – for E claims that something indeed leads him on – then this here question prods: to what agency may one attribute the motion that is said to have been leading him onward when what E claims to have happened, allegedly occurred? This question steers us neither closer to nor further from our goal. Which is, it may be claimed, this: to better understand that which is poorly understood.

What appears to be conclusive is this: our efforts thus far come as confirmation of our aspiration to effective dialogue on the matter – of what is poorly understood.

Where is Lambert?

One may attribute the matter, attribute all of its unformulated substance – in sum, substance of a matter of which E no longer formally claims to have been the construct of Es own means – attribute each node of its original agency, and each connecting nodule of its consecutive sequences, from the first down to the last formal uncertainty; indeed, why not attribute the whole gamut of this sober affair to something of an idiosyncratic moment? Perhaps. It is too early to tell. This E claims too. Yet idiosyncrasy is to reason what relic is to shrine: the shadow of rumour flirts all the better with the matter it alludes to the more the rumour avoids the light. Reason is a mass of grey outstretched underfoot. And shrine is to reason what relic is to the idiosyncratic. Not so? And E claims to steer neither by the latter nor via the former, but merely glide, contiguous to gravity, though not without grounds for some or other reason. This is a claim to which he holds, firmly, formally with firmness, though now less firmly. So any decision taken to attribute the matter of his motion to the uncertain means of movement would seem, well, a most uncertain path to pursue. What I can say though, albeit less than more than would be useful to Es cause, is this: E was out there, somewhere, wandering about the mute point, if not the ill-appointed place, to where the motion had led him, wandering, that is, in a circumambulatory fashion in and around the particular whereabouts beyond the keyhole, when what E claimed to have happened, in Es words, apparently occurred. No substantial evidence has driven conclusive reason through his footfalls and on to the fore. So: if we are to believe him, if any belief is to be vested in Es words – in that quizzical abstraction of Es less than certain claim – then the hypothetical effects of what E eludes to must be formally attributed to, and henceforth be put forward as being of the purest of speculation – and this, on the grounds that E claims to be uncertain.

Apart from the echo and the thud of Es own words, which is itself an acoustic matter, the metaphysical substance of which this discourse would prove wholly inconclusive, the one outstanding matter, that pertaining to what E claims to have heard, that is to say the question, that is according to Es ears – a matter, again, the grounds of which are alone based on Es former claim to have glided on further than the agency of Es mere motion – may, as a question, willing incur further speculation.

written.work.Copyright© 2011-2012. All rights reserved

{ … … … }

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s