0. reading your texts is touching heart but how they are written - with so much structure and rationality in all even absurd moments - it seems to me to be fully within the tradition of anglo-european way of expression, way of using language, words for purpose... well - I am in a moment of low trust to language in general - how much better was Hagir speaking whatever - nobody was later blaming her for accusations... and how much I remember expression of her face. Lets follow meeting of artist with embargo on making art and make next meeting with embargo on formulating ideas... or formulating in languages the others don’t understand (for me easy - both)

1. Yes remix ABC
But also
We write like whiteman
To fight the whiteman

Whiteman creates nothing he only steals and then uses our creations against us
So we use his weapon against him


1. yes, but should we really accept the rules we are fighting against, use the same -for whiteman (romans) understandable  - ways? (knowing that this is a whiteman formulation , too - how my reply should look like - if ever using key board:
kwqbivú grg hš+p rj iedavb§ihrwpgj  ojf porj pr

???- actually I know - my replay should be non conscious - non verbal and telepathic - which - as I realized - when whiteman writing now - I am also trying... - kind of constatnt stream - or connection - )

1. We now come to one of the most interesting parts of Sun Tzu's treatise, the discussion of the CHENG and the CH`I." As it is by no means easy to grasp the full significance of these two terms, or to render them consistently by good English equivalents; it may be as well to tabulate some of the commentators' remarks on the subject before proceeding further. Li Ch`uan: "Facing the enemy is CHENG, making lateral diversion is CH`I. Chia Lin: "In presence of the enemy, your troops should be arrayed in normal fashion, but in order to secure victory abnormal maneuvers must be employed." Mei Yao-ch`en: "CH`I is active, CHENG is passive; passivity means waiting for an opportunity, activity beings the victory itself." Ho Shih: "We must cause the enemy to regard our straightforward attack as one that is secretly designed, and vice versa; thus CHENG may also be CH`I, and CH`I may also be CHENG." He instances the famous exploit of Han Hsin, who when marching ostensibly against Lin-chin (now Chao-i in Shensi), suddenly threw a large force across the Yellow River in wooden tubs, utterly disconcerting his opponent. [Ch`ien Han Shu, ch. 3.] Here, we are told, the march on Lin-chin was CHENG, and the surprise maneuver was CH`I." Chang Yu gives the following summary of opinions on the words: "Military writers do not agree with regard to the meaning of CH`I and CHENG. Wei Liao Tzu [4th cent. B.C.] says: 'Direct warfare favors frontal attacks, indirect warfare attacks from the rear.' Ts`ao Kung says: 'Going straight out to join battle is a direct operation; appearing on the enemy's rear is an indirect maneuver.' Li Wei-kung [6th and 7th cent. A.D.] says: 'In war, to march straight ahead is CHENG; turning movements, on the other hand, are CH`I.' These writers simply regard CHENG as CHENG, and CH`I as CH`I; they do not note that the two are mutually interchangeable and run into each other like the two sides of a circle. A comment on the T`ang Emperor T`ai Tsung goes to the root of the matter: 'A CH`I maneuver may be CHENG, if we make the enemy look upon it as CHENG; then our real attack will be CH`I, and vice versa. The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent.'" To put it perhaps a little more clearly: any attack or other operation is CHENG, on which the enemy has had his attention fixed; whereas that is CH`I," which takes him by surprise or comes from an unexpected quarter. If the enemy perceives a movement which is meant to be CH`I," it immediately becomes CHENG."


1. language - european or whatsoever else is just a tool to communicate.. and it has some more roles elaborated through the course of time - manipulation in a conscious (logic) and unconscious (grammar) way. Very interesting that the agendas of, Martin, your major scope are exactly those two - perfectness of the grammar (there I include the fidelity to the fixed meanings - i.e. "distrust to the words") and another one - the prejudice and logic to shape the communication. Both paths are the basis of the structure of the serious culture - i.e. art and its system rests on this particular structural thinking basis. I just want you [Martin] to remind your decision to not to talk during the first Alytus art strike in 2009 (what came from [artistic] logic) and then immediate change of the decision at place - meeting is about communicating straightly and it goes from the heart, not from mind. Logic, writing, grammar - that are the abstract things, while relations by heart are concrete. Language is a gun and I am not going to give it to mine enemies I am rather thinking about refusing to use it in some particular way. And one more thing - abstract jokes are not funny...


0. and maybe some other thing - which comes along when reading records - and following accusations - which are too talkative to be able to carry the joy of arguing... maybe I try now with the trust to language, meaning, logic and even a grammar - maybe its  different formats - records form meetings - which rarely have an ability to carry the essence of atmosphere ... and texts made as a texts (within whatever tradition) - here as a good example I can again mention that Eduardo Galeano text form Alytus website - I don’t know - would so much prefer talking in person...

0. ...an interesting thing besides  trying to formulate and share the formulation of the moment is: why to write down. To remind, have chance to compare the flowing memories with the fixed... is there also an ambition for possible repetition?

1. Orientation of class in space and of time in class etc

1. Of touch to sight to thought

0. But yes shutting down of smell and sound and taste

1. There is a tendency in matter that functions towards exclusivity, exclusion, ignorance and incomprehensibility, towards the attraction to border regions, towards dissolution, towards fog formation, and that precisely this dissolving activity is necessary for the sake of wahdat. That what in its time the Tower of Babel really could not be completed because people knew each other all too well, with everyone doing and saying the same thing. Therefore they were separated so that each could learn something the other could not and pronounce words that the other could not say or understand, so when they got together and got to know each other again, then they could build the tower of Babel and this will be different then just repetition. Might be orientation of class is about fixing the dissolution in time and space while flowing memories to be left as it goes?.. I mean in smell, sound and taste.