E was not far removed from where E himself had not been before on similar occasions when, as has previously been stated in Es formal claim, what is said there to have happened, occurred. That is to say, E was not far from where he claims not to have been on former occasions (which admittedly we cannot explore here) when, roaming in Es peripatetic manner, which on occasion E claims to have taken for motion, E would find himself out there, and at these moments E would, E claims, find himself in certain vicinities that were neither dissimilar nor similar – given the uncertain means of determining the exact whereabouts of the location – to the location in which E says E had found himself when it occurred. Nobody, however, has come forward and made a statement, thus corroborating that E was seen in the general whereabouts of that or any another vicinity, which may be considered either similar or dissimilar, further or nearer, closer to or farther from the place not far removed from where E had not been before on former occasions. So nobody can confirm Es claim. E himself, of other bodies, recalls having seeing none: there was no body with whom E avoided a collision, or so E claims. Alas, there is no one with whom E can be said to have collided. Which is unfortunate. Neither collision nor an intersection of paths can be established, not even on the oddest occasion, as sometimes occurs when paths, for want of a better orientation, intersect at a concomitant moment of embodied motion, and, as such, the bodies set upon these intersecting paths are hence said to successfully collide. Of this form of collision there is not the merest brush of air on an epaulette or smudge on a cheek to mention; neither the faintest tussle of a trouser leg nor the slightest feint of a gesture hinted at prior to deviation, which would have followed the apperception of an oncoming body in motion; formerly stated, there is, it appears, no trace of another body that, well, never was. No chequered encounter, no faltering of a foot against a lesser body, no path defiantly crossed, not a bump to have nudged into. And no counter argument, none whatsoever to strike Es claim from the roll. Es back unscathed by breath and vexation, both. No limb or Lambert, none to speak of. Must one, then, surmise that neither Es envelope nor Es eye was ever met by motion? Did Es feet encounter no disembodied paths – or was there merely no crossover of paths he can attest to, for abstract reasons? For what if the interpenetration of their motion, Es and that of some other unknown body’s, was one of a passing through that may have occurred unbeknownst to either of the two, thus oblivious to both, if not only E himself? What if the intersection of their respective pathways was of another mode of form altogether, that is to say one that may now, in retrospect, be considered to have been formless? If so, and should an intersection thus have occurred, would it not then have been of the very intersecting form of which E himself (given the formlessness of the oncoming body in motion) would continue to be ignorant, of both the body and of Es own successful intersection with the former body’s formless state? Whence Es ignorance of such a collision would seem, well, concomitant with his attitude – objectively disinclined to perceive of formlessness anything that Es reason may of its form formulate – and hence E, having seen neither cinder nor shine, would then make his claim to having had no intersection whatsoever with whomsoever due to his subjective ignorance of the formless object in motion? We must ask this: Is ours reasonable speculation? For apart from Es own appendages, body afoot, on foot, feet gliding through the moment, each barnacle turned up on its scant cushion of air, toes in motion and upward, the foot strong in the usual thrust of palm to heel under the action of perambulation, E himself seems to remember having put off from himself any matter of commotion that may have arisen in the environs, that is to say in the whereabouts contiguous to Es accepted form, contiguous to though off from himself, off from the parchment of his bodily envelope – if indeed co-motion, other than of Es feet, there was at the lost time of his claim to motion without intersection.
Out and about, nowhere particular, wandering in an informal location, himself clear enough of the keyhole so as to be considered nowhere E knew too well, hence nowhere in relation to a particular somewhere where E previously resided on occasion. Where was E?
Never on Es person, neither map nor measure has E kept. Convenient. This E formally claims. For fear of losing one or the other E kept on Es person neither nor. For dread of losing either or both. So E claims. Note: E was always cautious in his aforesaid motion, so E claims, again, claims still, over and again, to it lays claim. Yet knowing neither this nor that, and being neither hither nor thither, Es form of caution, formally mentioned, is quickly called into question, as is Es loose claim. Albeit informally. E says that for fear of losing both direction and purpose in an undefined context of motion, where no claim to direction can be established, the vector of purpose formally hints at a non sequitur; E, for fear of losing direction of motion, which is the designated cause of Es alleged movement (the origin of which is yet to be established) E himself kept on Es person neither map nor measure. For fear of losing the sum of the two, E says, claiming no specifics, neither of place nor of person, E himself there included – which is something quite frightening, if fully considered.
Of a sudden the question emerged. This seems to be conclusive; E says it is formal. We must hold it off as having been formerly formal, then, only to have mitigated to a form more informal, and hence inconclusive. Officially. Out of some nowhere, from an uncertain location, one which E never previously had had reason to explore, something formal is said to have emerged. E claims that this emergence erected itself in the centre of… somewhere unknown, a whereabouts that, although its geography remains uncertain, must henceforth be considered formally, if one is to take stock of the claim that E himself was in a particular location, though unbounded – at least particular to him, and for him, for his barnacles and from the friction beneath his feet – there, bolt upright, when it occurred; for it is henceforth a place that E will forevermore equate, link, associate to that exacting moment, one impaled by the emergence of the singular question, and that even though the debris caused by the impalement occasioned no mark or established measure of its impact on the designated location, nor on Es bodily person, none at least that we were at means to formerly identify.
In a place devoid of things certain, void of that which E may have considered certain, E began to encircle the aforesaid question that had impaled the moment. Somewhere, in an open space beyond the keyhole, a whereabouts rid of all formal shape of everyday currency – chair; hand; shadow; lamppost – in a place, itself lost to those things that ordinarily demark most other more certain locations, locations with which E would claim to be more familiar (given past events, and, more particularly, given Es memory of the events through which E may have passed, and which E somehow claims to be of Es past, including, of course, those moments in which E himself would claim to have partaken, after Es measured fashion, which is to say at par, looking on from a distance – were E at the time not a mere witness of the past moment, according to Es claim, that is, taking into account the past existence of the events that make up Es claimed past, a past spent yonder side of the keyhole – in another place entirely, locked away there – one through which, if E were to fix Es regard, E might claim to have some previous knowledge of the whereabouts of this or that, of something somewhere beyond the keyhole in a location henceforth lost to these memories and things, and memories of things, and things of Es memory, in and of the thereabouts, that is to say) in a somewhere and a nowhere else that would not represent any of these former moments, none of them, the question, impaling its point, is said there to have emerged. This E claims.
It is, E continues to declare, a vague place, one that may be no different from any other undetermined sphere, say, if one can speak of spheres, as one might discourse about the motion that would impulse a circumnavigation about a sphere, of a movement around this or that, the eye leading, its gaze fixed on the object, of a circular motion, spherical, or evenly rounded, the globular form of which would permit one to cut across, through the radius, after having followed the motion of an insect, say, buzzing in orbit around the evening lamp light that itself would have, and perhaps still does, emanate from a lamppost yonder side of the keyhole. From nowhere, then, in this sphere of vagueness, the interrogative erected itself – up and about him, uncertain in form, yet there, or so E claims. Its presence, for E declaims that like a flat trumpet, it had a brass presence that somehow incused enquiry, an informal presence that bent into the whereabouts, bending its brass neither with nor without noise, nor being properly silent; the emergence of an interrogative, questioning; an interrogative emergence, questioned; in short, a question that was neither accusative nor showed signs of wanting to recuse him. Merely, E claims, a questioning matter declaiming itself as the interrogative, and thus enquiring of him, as though E himself were being called into the sphere of the probing question, called in and under this bent formulation, entering thus, E himself less and less certain, drawn in though, as it were, E ushered in and under its emerging form; and this, E claims, and formally too, is what happened in the vicinity, somewhere out there, in a whereabouts into which E would allegedly have wandered on too far, apparently. This has not been proven. We require further proof of motion, of cause to motion, hence of transport, and of direction, but mostly required is proof of this notional idea of purpose without proven reason – all this has been stated above, inconclusively. For what proof can be offered? It should therefore be stated that this ought to remain the matter of speculation – of a substance most undetermined. That itself is a recommendation, not a formal claim. It is, however, formally recommended. Should be stated again the claim that E was not too far removed from where E himself had not been before on similar occasions. Yet nobody saw him. And E himself, of other bodies, recalls having seen but none. No intersection to speak after. No disembodied motion of the formless, and no intersection, though how can one formally claim this as what was formerly so? Not a stray limb, neither nuisance nor Lambert. No scratch or scathing. Formally there was no encounter. A brass trumpet turned on its head was never present, E claims; formally it was not there at all. Yet the question caught his ear. The question did emerge of its own co-motion, that is, if E and Es words are to be consigned to any form of cursory belief, momentary or monumental.
Who encouraged Es motion via vagaries into ingress? None can say. Merely out wandering beyond the keyhole, thereabouts, as it were, for such claims remain undetermined, wandering in a certain thereabouts, both not here and not nowhere, a place, E claims, which is the location in which E found himself when the interrogative emerged, erected itself, informally, bending into the moment like a brass trumpet. He saw no instrument, neither of pewter nor enamel. The brass is the trumpet E claims not to have heard.
The beginning, E said to himself, should be considered. This seems to be conclusive: the question. E knew nothing of ingress.
If one is to attribute belief to the claim that is Es, then the moment of impalement was somehow of the measure that is required to receive the question. Again, this is speculation.
There was no trumpet. Of course this is wholly uncertain.
written.work.Copyright© 2011-2012. All rights reserved