A kind of communication that rejects certitude

If you want your writing to be spare, muscular, a la Hemingway et al, you are writing in the denial of extension, your sentences are going to be short, gutsy, visceral, fragmentary, and compacted by the crisis of their own abbreviation.


How does this kind of writing stand in the light of this. That is us, our reality, where the arrow points


In the light of this we must enter into a type of writing that rejects certitude; that is Delphic, no long-haul subordinate clauses, our reality then which has been formally under the grip of cognition and  ratcheted to a literary roller coaster with the demand for anti-gravitation pull
(stick to the subject). What we are then looking for is a type of writing which is inimical to grounded exposition. We don't want writing that is simply evocative. The picture above is evocative, but evocative of what?
A work of art is most intensely felt when it is most remote from society  (see above)

So the aim is (see above picture) of developing what is new in concepts, escaping jargon, escaping concepts that have become rigidified and obsolete.
It is only what does not fit in which can be true.  See above photo of where we are in the cosmos
and the space around us is endless, we will never come across a sign which says space ends here
even if our space travel is eternal, it is infinity and beyond. That is a lot of acreage for the landlord up above to take care of. But concepts of infinity and eternity are difficult enough without entering into
the lunacy of solace. I take Camus's line that because there is no meaning that gives my life meaning.

In the past we have, in our literary efforts, been pulling the slot machine handle
and believing that when the four oranges come up (critical approval) we have won the jackpot.
But (see above photo) we have been playing the wrong game.