That a machine can only be one if it replaces the body’s labor That a tool can only be one if it’s used by the hand That a tool forged from unethical means still has a use in a distant future That the use and provenance can be separated That this separation is worth knowing That when questioned about a tool’s purity, I respond with an alternative that is only a reaction That one day I’ll have strung together a set of tools and uses that precede, rather than succeed, the making of my living That I will not recognize it when it arrives That the tools I rely on are crafted by those I disagree with That a language is a tool and the tool can be questioned That, if the above is true, language has affordances That I might anticipate and avoid such affordances That a tool is only good for the job if its use is unclear And the same may be true for a machine That a linguistic machine, taking into consideration the first line here, would not replace the voice, but the mind That I often confuse the tool and the work it facilitates That a tool might be evaluated as a finished thing But that it’s malleability may contribute to its tool-ness That its finished-ness depends on the scope of its user That any object, tool or thing made with tool, contains in it an infinite amount of information That an ethical tool may be made by unethical means That the reverse is also true * * * If words are ancillary to content If being secondary to or in support of content means belonging to a notion If, on another hand, to support a notion is to be part of it Then to support is to exist But If a secondariness is then a separateness, then words are not the writer’s material If not the writer’s then must be the reader’s If the content is the writer’s If to be in support of content is to not be its part If only a part then perhaps at odds with the rest of the whole Then the structure is the language and reading’s looking If words are ancillary to content If content is to be understood as that which is not words If content is everything _but_ words If this means acknowledging the supportive group over the presumed individual If the individual is the word If the individual is ancillary to the group If by “the group” I mean the chain of laborers which make the thing If we understand that words are made of stuff that precedes words If the precedent is the content If we have to relearn what to read If what to read is still the question If what and how can be the same question If any text read the right way can be useful If usefulness is a reasonable expectation for our reading If words are ancillary to content If to be in support of content is to not be its part Then writing and reading are simultaneous * * * I often pause to consider why it is I’m so interested in fictional literature. It must be that mere mention of a fictional literature produces a literature that is and is not that. I want that simultaneity very much today. Can’t have it. Lyn Hejinian: “A fiction is a made thing that is recognized as such, and a fact is a made thing that is not recognized as such.”† † Lyn Hejinian, _A Mask of Motion_ (Providence: Burning Deck, 1977), p. 11.


  • https://www.dropbox.com/s/267q5ahvgi7zrdq/01%20My%20Life%20in%20MP3.mp3?dl=1

_bryce_ is a fan of