ABOUT

CHAPTER 1 of ‘THE DOMINANT AESTHETIC’;

As an fledgling artist working in the field of sorrows (position: harvester operator – unlicensed, though currently, I am unaware of the need for such qualifications and therefore the aforementioned qualification is rendered moot, that is, both my prior qualification of my harvester operator status as unqualified, and the (current, yet non-existent (funny that the notion of time in relation to my (lack of) qualifications in harvester operation should yield a self-nullifying description of time itself – that is, time may spur judgement (I declare my ‘current’ status (but as I write this sentence it is no longer ‘current’! In fact whatever temporal judgements I may declare are rendered moot – time falls upon its sword…) from a shifting vantage point from which one can never gain a steady footing suitable for one to truly take stock of one’s (ever-shifting) situation), yet if one were to attempt to qualify the existence of time, one would struggle, as how does one qualify time (again, the notions of qualifications, yet in this situation time is subservient to qualification, rather than the qualifications (harvester operator) discussed which were rendered effective or non-effective as per their temporal status) in the language of our reality, as defined by a census of the senses ( I can’t taste time, nor see it, nor smell it, but perhaps I can hear it in the continuing decay of my ears (I am exposed to many loud noises in my art), for as time goes ‘on’ (let us declare time in existence for argument’s sake), the ringing in my ears grows louder, and perhaps I can feel it for as time goes ‘on’, as I accumulate more scars, my body grows wearier, my back aches increasingly…however 2 out of 5 senses does not equal a consensus in our (invented, yet one cannot very well propose an argument for the nullification of time in total ideological freefall, can one? Granted, this invention may undermine (like a house built on muddy soils) my previous points and my future points somewhat, however, if I am successful at arguing against time, the time-based positioning of my points will be rendered non-existent, therefore, should I be persuasive of this notion, one should consider the invention of democracy a crutch supporting the wounded, yet noble (arguably) body of my argument) culture of democracy, therefore time cannot be qualified here – perhaps time exists in China, and is intermittent in Russia?)? I see no clear solution. I must therefore declare time unqualified to qualify my qualifications (and, as the prior statements have justified, I can also declare time out of existence in terms of its existence as proposed for argument’s sake earlier, and in terms of its general existence, as my sense-based rationale argued previously (or should I say, ‘previously’!)))) qualifications which I do not possess) I am often asked, ‘what’s the point?’

Spank My Warchest resides in a rundown shack on the edge of a Par 5. His handicap is two stunning norks.