comments 6
birth / creation / difference / glare / outline / parasite / religion / resonance / signal / silence / singularity

We are not one, but two. Dimorphs, in between, always escaping the fold and the unfold, running off madly in both directions. We are more viral — composed of parasites, miniature bodies without organs — than we are “hominid,” more “dead” than alive.

The origin of religion is the veil, the simplest tomb: the meaning of birth is not death but exposure, a novel opening into what admits of nothing but pure exchange. The two series diverge, but a singularity escapes both: a counter-signal, a nuance.

God is tucked behind innumerable folds, joyously obscured by the interweaving, patchwork garments of the messengers.

Perhaps the difference is tiny enough, and ever shrinking in this cosmos of interfusions. But already we are carefully following them, even — as it were — drawn forward by these untamed singularities…

He dances in their silences. What is the message? There is no answer to this question. Only, perhaps, the briefest of glimpses, the outline of the fold, an opening nearly obscured by dangerous glare.

The frame doesn’t converge with the outline; and there were never really outlines. Without signals the frame bursts, and what remains is neither finite nor infinite, but inter-finite, creation, resonance.

The Author

mostly noise and glare


  1. Bah, I’m appalled, I (actually) like some of this! Haha, Joe, you’re the Judaeo-prophet to my greco-philosofool. This is the distilled essence of classic-Joe: you’ve converged many of your enchanted lines into such a tapestry with so many fractal(folded) boundaries. You’re riffing, right, isn’t that the tacit self-joke? Playing Deleuze, Guattari, Serres, Derrida, etc. not as masks, but as refrains, chords harmonizing in a self-contemplating, spontaneous song of joy. I know you too well Joe, because much of what I’ve said eludes (perhaps) a standard critical reading. Resonance. This is your answer to the (inter/trans)(in)finite? Guattari vs. Cantor, a schizo(consistent)phrenic multiple. What does it take to think the non-Cantorian multiple rigorously (Laruelle)? Or thinking the Cantorian multiple under the non-?
    Ah, but now I’m riffing off you…

  2. Who, me or Joe? I wasn’t trying to take away from Joe’s post at all, I was trying to complement it if I could. I hope I didn’t detract from your post Joe. I wasn’t trying to say that Joe shouldn’t be taken seriously, but that the formality of Joe’s style seems to bear leitmotifs that are precisely musical, and that this could be borne out in a positive way. Creation via heterogeneity, etc. I was trying, in perhaps too crude a manner, to (amicably) penetrate the profundity of Joe’s style and thought, playing off the title in a reading against the grain. Precisely another arpeggio, which, to me, is my unconscious way of imitating Joe, i.e. giving him an homage. It’s like a rhizome, you have to start in medias res, then trailblaze a line of flight at an infinite speed breaking the normality of the scale–as Joe was describing to me the other night, arpeggios going beyond the scale of what is to be expected.

  3. Author: None. says


    With Taylor Adkins, though not perhaps particularly at Joseph Wiessman.

    I stumbled upon this site by accident, and it tickled me to the point of wishing that you could hear the sound of my low rumbling musical chuckle as I read this. I belief the reference is Beethovens very own: “A written schema on exposure to joy”.

    Great stuff guys

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.