ALIENALLONELINESS 

How can one share the experience of a collected: alien-ness / alone-ness / safety? What correlates understanding of this specific localization; of its inner movements, that does not destroy it? Orientation to the influence-emotion-moment of confluence takes place through specific, intentional and oblique guidance.      

Buckminster Fuller observes “Unity is plural and at minimum two”. What union defines whole absence; whole emptiness; whole alienation? What union contains these? In apprehending the full character of aloneness one must be not only inclusive of a complementarity of absences but inclusive of absence’s oneness with itself. This requires a higher order; a way through the dyad of union. Sharing, in this sense, is beyond both complement and unity.  

The same collected conditions taken as triadic constitute symbol and vessel; the triad bringing into unity both the components and their interrelationships. In this way one may orient to its downward interpretation but also toward qualities and stations along newly created movements through the anagogic. Moving between the symbol and semantic, the triad establishes itself as both private and public.

Private - from the latin privus for “separate” “one’s own” or “peculiar to one’s self”

Public - from the latin publicus for “common”

Community - from the latin Communitas

Cum - “together” or “with”

Munis - “burden” or “gift”

Alone - from middle english origins for “all one” “wholly” “completely”

Alien - from the Latin alienus 

Alienus - “belonging to another”

Alius - “beyond” or “else”

Safe - from the latin salvus for “preserved” “sound” or “unharmed” tracing back further to proto-indo-european solh wós “whole-some”

What is clear is that a community defined solely by its publicness undoes this union. Its completeness, sanitized into signifiers, leaves the whole lacking. The dimensions and potency of aloneness are limited in the defined regions of this public. A private public becomes necessary. A haven for the common unseen. 

While multifold, the relationship to alone-ness; to alien-ness, is not social. Mutual understanding does not mandate this quality of togetherness but another. It possesses an internal subdivided silence those having had the taste only might acknowledge; a shape-gift illuminating movements toward the unions of unphysical, metaphysical, departing-from-physical, formerly physical, yet-still-uncreated-and-moving-into-physical; a garden arranged for thoughts grown in shade.

Taken in two-ness, signifiers strip away the currency and carriers of its characteristic nuance. Two dispossesses Sincerity. It is a degradation which voids the spaces where this peculiar character can come in; where public and private may be held together in otherness. A presence of the unknown is prerequisite. 

What when this moment-emotion-influence compares itself with another? Where shall we experience this gift-burden? What does it require of terrestrial presence and consciousness? In what region do these movements come together into their plurality? Arrogant assumption concludes that all resolves at human scale. But rather than human wielding language, the call to language itself wielding human as human-wielding language produces the moment of their plurality in human being.  

What orients us to its belonging-to-another-peculiar-to-one’s-self-whole-else-ness? 

The triad’s reconciliatory call to language-as-shaping-tool-of-the-earthly and the impressed parts beyond these three regions reveals a possibility to sit plural with the burden of the symbolic.  

“There, between two darknesses; two defining modes. An other-light shone which only they could see. Forget is the joy of leaving.”