25.06.2024 “Science”

i realize i am not very suited to practice “Science”, since the embodiment of m(y)* fragmentary nature is more precious to m(e)* than any generalization or “objectivity” — no matter how effective — could ever be.

* the “y” and “e” in “my” and “me” are in parentheses here to subvert the uniformity and stability of the having subject. “my” and “me” suggest a subject that has whatever is “my” is referring to or “me” is. There is a stable “I” behind every “me” and “my”. “m(y)” and “m(e)” still partially perform the forenamed functions, but they shift the focus to the letter m, which stems from the Egyptian hieroglyph for water and which embodies the fluidity of water in this text. The stable “I” behind “my” and “me” is replaced by the fluid “m” in “m(y)” and “m(e)”. The “m” that, due to its fluidity, is at certain points indistinguishable from the object of the “m(y)”, but is no less real for it.

(This linguistic concept-practice is especially effective if your name is M/m, which m(ine) uncoincidentally is)