Carmen first brought this to my attention. I see everything in black and white. Or, I see everything that is not black and white to be wishy-washy. I may call it blue-collar, common-sense, practical, but it all comes down to the answer must be yes or no. "It depends" means you are a wimp.

Perhaps a Norman Mailer quote here.

Can't even spell his name.

But a few things I have realiseed today regarding this. It started whenI asked Karen Finley if her "oedipus and post-modern" references re: George and Martha were in earnest or part of that whole mythology, and she said "both... i am very earnest."

Then continued reading Trinh T. Minh-ha :

"With the tools available, one can create different time-spaces that expose or turn to advantage the fissures, gaps and lapses of the system. We're coming back here to the notion of inappropriate(d)ness as linked to the notion of boundary event, which I've been elaborating in my more recent works. The challenge is not to fall prey to the dominant process of totalization: rather than working at bringing, through gradual acquisition, what has been kept invisible into visibility, one would have to break with such a system of dualities and show, for example, what constitutes invisibility itself as well as what exceeds mere visibility."

And while I cannot pretend I entirely understand what she means by "invisibility itself as well as what exceeds mere visibility," I see this modernist either/or as the view of a judging outsider. Is one Ghanain's perspective Indigenous? Is only one perspective Indigenous, and only those who subscribe to that perspective considered Indigenous? Is all man-made artificial? If so, what on earth can 'artificial' mean: technological?

The answer to all of those questions is 'No.' (oops, I did it again. Necessary aside: this midi search engine is HEAVEN! Look: Pink Floyd! No, Dylan! No, the Stones!)

Umm.

Anyway.

My whole point was that the Lincoln thing can be about electrons and it can be about nothing. That felt deeper in my head.

<sheesh>