From the endless fountain.
You can think of it as an endless fountain, there's always fluid in the fountain that keeps flowing out-and-out; ever releasing. This is the extent of my mind, perhaps of minds — a general statement. And as it keeps coming out it is utilized: bottled, flavored, converted into different liquids, it exists for different utilities; you can drink it, you can use it as lubricant — the purpose matters not, there is much to be said about the purpose of things, I want to speak of this fountain. The endless nature of this fountain... can it keep up?
I have a blog, a microblog, a YouTube channel, a secret blog, a page dedicated to writing nonsense. There is already an overlap of ideas, sometimes I feel like I could write something, but I could also just talk about it on YouTube or perhaps if I think of it from some perspective that has yet to be revealed I could turn it into a fragment; a small section within a larger subject to be part of my main blog. Maybe the answer is to do it all, to not choose between one thing or another but simply perform the repetition, I don't know if I am capable of that — I'd say no, I do not think so. When I express something I no longer feel like talking about it again, until I do.
And all of that is not counting for projects that also take from the endless fountain that is my creative output. Is it truly endless or is that just an appearance? If it isn't, when does it end? When it does... what do I do? Not to say that I am running out of ideas, it's just a concern for the future. I want to have many things on different places, like damn, I was thinking of making another, secret, YouTube channel.
I've even voiced my concern against the method of the Surrealists, which would promise an immediate endless current, be it that it is in the way of nonsense, which to me is as good as any other text, perhaps due to my insane beliefs or out of a sense of aesthetics.
Feb. 10 From my Twitter account.
En cuanto al surrealismo; mi pregunta no recae en la profundidad, sino en su vastedad. ¿Pueden pensamientos precoces eyacular hasta los límites de la imaginación, o se requiere acaso ejercer un nivel de exaltación solo posible a través de la delicada presión de la consciencia?
Surrealism accesses the immediate unconsciouses that is the depth of the common use signs, it can only be in so far as the nearest extension of the though which would be of the farthest association, that due to the way we interpret it —in the way it exists— allows for the creation of depth. A surrealist text is profound and rich in possibility of meaning for whoever wants to do the works of making it make sense. But it has a limit in the ability of the conscious mind to access the unconscious, one that only allows for so many depths to exists; it is an incredibly deep puddle, deceptively so, yet the series of puddles are all the same, they all share the common trait of being within the scope of immediacy.
There is no true psychic automatism, there is always a degree of conscious effort, we have the possibilities to reorient the direction of the unconscious due to our influence over it, and the effect our senses have over it. But that does not account for the main issue of the scope, which is a problem that pertains to signs in particular, rather than a larger subject.
Outside of Surrealism there are other concerns in regards to methods; while a cut-up allows to take from an already existing set of signs, thus allowing the existence of the farthest relationship, in that way eliminating the relationship of immediacy (as it is disconnected from the unconscious or conscious effort). The product of the method shares a common set of patterns which on themselves are recurrent signs, I must admit there is a higher degree of possibility, but there's also the danger of becoming accustomed to reading the repeating patterns as the value of the relationships rather than that pertaining to the words, sentences, and overall text.
It seems to me that, no matter what, there is always an end point to the extent of our creative faculties, which makes me think that this endless fountain is not as endless as one would imagine. Still, all of that only applies within a selective set of rules, shifting the procedure is always the best solution for difficulties that seem to be rooted in a framework or set of rules; a procedure has no regards for reality, only the end results, but to bend a rule of a higher degree requires a shift in perception, perhaps that's a fundamental thing to understanding how procedures work — bend the rules of writing, and you are an eccentric, bend the rules of reality, and you are delusional; there are degrees to our procedures, to our insanity.
Can it keep up? — Yes.
Can the world keep up? — That remains to be seen.