The minute I found myself typing the phrase in a distinguished dictionary service, it struck me: I am doing it all wrong. “Define: relationship” I wrote; all I remember from that point onward is a pure need to replace the internet browser’s window with a blank sheet of digital paper.
I felt it
to my mental bone: little can epistemology do in providing with a definition to
“relationship” (other than informing me that it’s a twelve-letter noun), in the
same way that dictionaries could prove inadequate in covering the multiple
aspects of “fiction”.
And it’s
this incessant frenzy of our era, urging us to accumulate no more than mere facts
and figures, which drove me to hand-pick a direction so irrelevant to begin
with: one cannot simply explore terms mentally, unless one allows his emotions
to get deeply involved.
Unless I
have actually felt (or am willing to feel) the true dimensions of “relationship”,
I am doomed to mentally suffer my way through social self-consciousness; and if
I do not refrain from urges forcing me to limit my perspectives to mere paradox
or post-modern criticism, I am in no position to distinguish all aspects of “fiction”.
That said, there's a chance I might see more clearly
now:
The “Fiction of Relationship” is not a controversy.
It’s not a principle either.
For all I know, it could be a creative perspective under a humanized form, exhausted by its suffering journey to incarnation, seeking for a sanatorium and a chance to re-invent itself.
It’s a seed I am willing to take in; how it flourishes remains to be seen…
The “Fiction of Relationship” is not a controversy.
It’s not a principle either.
For all I know, it could be a creative perspective under a humanized form, exhausted by its suffering journey to incarnation, seeking for a sanatorium and a chance to re-invent itself.
It’s a seed I am willing to take in; how it flourishes remains to be seen…
0 comments:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου