Couldn’t leave that multiplication of a situation into a set of situations suspended like a red herring. Back in the summer KF wrote:
“The risk, then, resides in sending ideas out into the world before they’re fully formed, in inviting disagreement with whatever half-baked nonsense I produce.”
And recently referenced it in the entry to which this comment is appended. I find it very interesting that what is left suspended there is the naming of the intelocutor from which the disgargreement will come. Indeed, as revealed in the comments to that entry, the is scenario of later disagreement with what the self had written previously is contemplated.
Now in reference to the sleep and time budgeting remarks above… can one shorten the intervals in the dialogue with the self? Can one play out the game of disagreement within one positing? The blog form could allow for the experimentation with a different type of voicing in the entry as opposed to the comments? Can the blog form help exteriorize a dialogic mode of writing?
The answer is patently yes. I think what I have read of KF’s entries so far is that KF is willing to send out the half-baked, the still-in-formation. I suspect that KF is able to respond to the nonsense — her nonsense and my nonsense, too. In my reading, the situation is not so much about boundary crossing but about risking response, risking observable response.
I have a wonderful tingling sensation that KF is on the verge of permitting a display of a split, multiple and layered subjectivity. A very postmodern Hallowe’en!