Reading Kathy Acker

i've always feared most that someone will destroy my mind

Say there's two theories of time.

absolutist theory of time: the world is in time. the world, events occur in moments. these moments can be mapped on a time line.

relativist theory of time: time is in the world. time is the temporal relations of events. an event can be earlier (later) than or simultaneous with another event.

the first theory suggessts that individuals (subjects) are the true substance. the second theory suggest that temporal characters are the true substance of the world.

If I'm an individual and I persist over a period of time, I'm a substance. If I'm an individual and not a moment, I'm an ordinary individual. Right now (t1) I'm picking my nose. Right now (t2) I'm not picking my nose. "Picking my nose" is a relation between t1 and me. "Not picking my nose" is a relation between t2 and me. But what if there aren't distinct moments? If t1 isn't distinct from t2? (Relativist theory of time.) I'm an individual who is picking and not picking his nose. Contradiction. I can't be a substance, an individual who persists in time.

If I'm not an individual or if no individuals exist, no temporal relations exist. (In a world without individuals, any character can exemplify any other character. If temporal relations exist, a character could be simultaneously nose-picking and not-nose-picking. Contradiction.) By "I," I mean an unknown number of individuals. Each individual exists for a present duration and exemplifies one or more characters. These characters exist out of time. Example: "I change." "I" exemplifies "change" ; "change" exists, is timeless.

This can't be totally accurate because when I remember, I remember an awareness, not an object. I don't remember my hamster, I remember seeing my hamster. Or: I remember seeing my hamster, I remember my hamster directly as I became my hamster, I go back and forth. If I do at any time remember (imagine, think about, etc.) an awareness, I must be a continuant. But when I remember an awareness, I don't repeat that awareness. My remembering seeing my hamster, I'm aware differs from my seeing my hamster. Or "repeating" doesn't exist

If by "substance" I mean an individual who exists (continues) without change and totally independently, I'm not a "substance." Change (temporal relations) is substance. If I'm not a substance and yet am a subject, I'm an individual or number of individuals. An individual happens only within a present duration; an individual doesn't change. Therefore I'm composed of an unknown number of such individuals: I is a (predicate) relation.

Kathy Acker is important. Her literature is an experiment that teaches us about literature and thought. She proves that writing isn't just a thing in books. Her writing is something that also takes place in the world. Her life as a writer and her actions are proof to this fact. A writer isn't just someone who sits in front of a desk and thinks. Kathy Acker lived in the world and lived her words. She even wrote fiction.

Her books aren't fun to read. Maybe they are at first. But that bleeds away quickly. It isn't something that I get excited about, and even find myself avoiding her work. Because there is so much to think about in there. It isn't something that can be read for pleasure. Every word must be thought over, otherwise you are skimming the page. Her words will resonate long after I have resold this book.

I don't like how self-centered her characters are, and I don't think that it needs to be so. I don't like her anger, but I believe that for her it was necessary. Otherwise, I am either unsure, or have no complaints.