GRGR(4) 67.34 Your One And Only

[Paul Mackin]

> On the Crutchfield/Crotchfield thing, the two words bear a close resemblance
> to the word "crochet" or "crotchet" (I forget which) which is used in quite a
> striking way a little farther on to denote a personal peculiarity (as well as
> a certain kind of firearm and preference for same). Since one sense of
> "peculiar" is "singular" it seems entirely fitting that the ONE westerman
> should be Crutchfield or Crotchfield.



                                            P.




> s~Z:
> >'Not "archetypical" westwardman, but THE ONLY.'
> >
> >What's with this? Why emphasize that Crotchfield
> >[If we do not exclude it, in the middle of Crouch
> >and Crutch we find the synthesis = Crotch. Look down
> >at your middle. You'll see it there between your legs.]
> >is NOT archetypical?
>
> This whole "only one" scenario allows for endlessly modified categories.  It
> turns out there isn't really only ONE of everything, only one of everything
> which is a "form of life."  Well what happens to that ONE when it's killed?
> Is it forever an extinct category?  Or does ANOTHER replace it so there'll
> still be one of EVERYTHING?  In this world is there room for the invention
> of a NEW entity?  Further, it turns out there are an endless number of
> Indians.  All you have to do to extend the number is to add a new qualifier:
> tribe, city, real or not.  You can slice the Wyrm into thinner and thinner
> shades of difference forever.
>
> The movement here is specifically AWAY from the achetypal to the endlessly
> specific, possibly at the peril of our sanity.
>
> I think part of the point here is the limits of our logic and our language
> to define a world.  The permutations of meaning are ENDLESS, thus: "YOU
> NEVER DID THE KENOSHA KID"