Whylessness
Uh, ok; so, considering the narrowing confines or our overwhelming and frankly exhausted reality, whylessness would act as an antidote to our relentless overdetermination. A position of both and—like the intermediate stance in ballet—whylessness would not deny determinations but rather suspend them in the interests of the poet’s negative capability. Living without a why is to live in a universe without origin, or discernable purpose, to accept uncertainty, indeterminacy and darkness and not irritably reach after cause and effect (that may only bind things up, mentally speaking). This is not a meaningless state, but rather one reliant upon a meaning more local (and phantasmatic) than we may have supposed—namely, the ecstatic. Transcendent truth is exchanged for an immanent one. A truth not found on a mountain, or in heaven, or the 37th floor of a luxury condominium for that matter, but one pulsing immediately through our life and in our mortal body—if we would only pay attention to it. To keep the future open our principle virtues will be curiosity, naiveté and receptivity (particularly that of the most vulnerable among us). So that we do not confuse the map for the territory (which, properly speaking, is not a territory and has no map) we will remain indifferent to mastery, philosophical decision, metaphysics, scientific reductionism, being online and so on—all that falls under the star of paranoid knowledge. In short, we will allow experience to remain mysterious, open-ended and, ultimately, unknowable. Indifferent to why, we would instead ask “how,” or even “what:” like, for example, now what?
