what was I going to say? I had these things to say but forgot what they were.

I think my thoughts run in cycles of two weeks: two weeks of lucidity, then two weeks of muddled fog, and so on and so forth. It might be interesting to log each day and see how I've been operating.

this piece of blog/entry will slowly get more incoherent as I go on, because I know it'll already serve as a dumping ground for those incoherent elements of thought..

what's the danger in writing a coherent essay against a topic that argues against foundational terms? if coherence is a foundation, and anti-foundationalism is a foundation, how do we move outside/beyond this paradox? or how do we modify this paradox from within?

terms that mean much more to me now than what they did before this term: difference, other, space, foundation, discourse, structure, origin, coherence, presence, formal, sensible, archeology, genealogy.

I really like this stuff. I really do.

At the same time, I realize that I have just bought into a discourse about discourses, an exchange about structures, and by this imposition of all this post-structuralist post-modernist terminology upon my thinking, I am buying into a tradition -- that itself wishes to live without traditions. How can I reconcile this? Would I have been better off thinking about watching Rashomon my senior year of high school and having that be some sort of subliminal theoretical foundation for a worldview?

and now I know that this worldview can be perhaps Kantian in the sense of a noumena/phenomena split, except maybe in my view of Rashomon there was no noumena, only phenomena..

And once I have this lexicon, there's no turning back, no moving outside of this movement outside. I'm worried. There's no rest, these ideas hound me, which is good and bad, good because I feel like this is true (whatever true means, of my structure that produces knowledge-power), or proper, or maybe in alignment with Foucault's "not wanting to be governed quite so much", and bad because I've just bought into a giant structure that makes sense to me, about the power of structure, bought into this discourse/structure about having an awareness of discourses. If you enter our hell, then we'll teach you the lesson that hell is bad..

Am I being governed by a meta-discourse attempting for less-governance? Or no, I'm just learning a shared knowledge, a language with which to communicate with other people. Is language this discourse, this shaping power like what Saussure (and Sapir and Whorf, kinda), argue? Maybe I'd be better off mute? And then maybe, hell is indeed other people, because other people implies a society and therefore a language...

of course not.