The Fnords are Everywhere, today.

And, by the way, when do you begin to notice something by the shape of its absence?

What's the Bush Administration's continuing plan, for the next year and a half? I believe it reads "*Extend Hand. Raise Middle Finger.*"

From mech_angel: 'Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq'

i particularly Enjoyed the part that reads , 'Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.' Emphasis mine. Read it.

And from the Post: 'Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.'

I can see them, but I'll be god Damned If they're going to eat me.

Absence: Framing a space.

The Art of Noise - [Ode to Don Jose]--- I posed the question, earlier today, "when do you begin to notice something by the shape of its absence?" This was, at the time, in reference to the political situation, but I think it deserves a more general look.

Jorge Luis Borges asked, "In a riddle whose answer is 'chess,' what is the only forbidden word?" Everything you do and say is designed to shape it, frame it, allude to the edges and limits of it, the defining lines of a hundred different contexts, put together to frame "Chess." (Manhattan Transfer - [Sing Joy Spring]). You see, in identification of a thing, we do this, already, but we have the luxury of having, at our disposal, the memories of those contexts, the full lists of what we mean, when we address a thing. When dealing with someone else's contexts-- in this case, the composer of a riddle-- we must strive to understand associations that we may not necessarily have, or at least not in the way that the other person has them.

We have to strive for a Wittgensteinian cluster concept understanding for whatever it is. My riddle, from a month ago, tells you a few key things about the concepts that, together, in my head surround and create the term "riddle." (Rasputina - [Rats]). It teaches you something about me, to understand my riddle, to put together the pieces of what I'm doing. The same goes for words that are never spoken, in certain situations, obvius words, words that anyone might use, but that the party involved is labouring to make sure they Don't use, and then the words they use, instead.

Now, let's say that, instead of words, we're talking about concepts, or events. moonandserpent, this is about you, but everyone else, you should listen, too. It's about you, moonandserpent, because it's about you. (Suzanne Vega - [As a Child]). Earlier, you reposted the executitve order about the seeming now-legality of unreasonable search and seizure, but you didn't put a name to it, someone from whom you spotted the link. And I realised why that was, when I stopped to think about it. For me, there is a clear lineage of personages who had the link, and then posted it, leading to me. Some of these people know me, but not all of them. For you, there was no such clarity. The members of my lineage, and even myself, in this context, all know you. (MC Chris - [Robotussin]) We formed a cluster of unique people, with one major pre-existing common factor: You.

I'm sure that, if we looked, there would be more factors, and that if we looked from another angle, there would be a stronger connection to some one or some thing else. But for this point in time, from this angle (me, particularly), you are the common denominator. This is by way of an example, and I apologise if it embarassed you (heh). The point of this was all to say that if you have the trajectories of several things-- the bent light, bounced rocks, dust and moons in a seeming orbit-- but you can't see anything there, do you assume that nothing is there, or do you try to see if something is there, but you just have to frame it right?

Pain - [The Bottlerocket War]--- You can tell what something is, was, does, or did, by the things that frame it, even if you can't touch the thing, directly. Scientists do it, all the time, and we wouldn't know about black holes, otherwise.

Why am I saying all of this? I've left out something resembling a central point, you might say. I'll tell you this much: These ideas can be applied to anything.

Pain - [Put 'Em Back]--- You can note it in interpersonal relationships, speech patterns, behaviour (where won't a person look? Where do they look instead?), science, concept formation, world shaping. Anything.

My point? What is my point?

Cross-posted to stormwood