T H I
C K E T - C R I C K E T . A d i s p e r s e
d a n i m a l . Or beast. Of course, it is a beast.
Scattered and diffused. A unique beast.
Unique but omnipresent so no
expensive and logistically complex expeditions are needed to
meet it
– this will make some people very sad while the others very
happy.
Uniqueness and omnipresence would suggest the enormous size of
the
beast, however it is but a supposition since nothing is sure in
case
of t h i c r i c k e t . It can
be met as easy as hard it can be seen, although
it can be heard hardly but almost constantly (nothing is known
about
smelling). You look at it and you don’t see it. You see a lot of
other things and beasts, but you don’t see the t h i c r i c k e t . You
can’t see it because you are inside it which doesn’t mean it has
devoured you, swallowed or absorbed. No, it hasn’t. There was no
reason to do so. The t h i c r i c k e
t needs another kind of food. Well, in
fact we don’t know what kind of food it needs. We don’t know
even
if it needs any food at all. It looks like eating doesn’t
interest
the t h i c r i c k e t . Eating
is just a waste of time and energy. It looks
so but it can be not so. Everything can be absolutely different.
The
t h i c r i c k e t is a very
mysterious organism. It seems to be examined
thoroughly, we know everything about it, yet we know everything
only
as if about clothes and nothing about the covered body. For
example,
we know the t h i c r i c k e t
can be covered with scales and feathers and
tufts of fur and leaves and tiles of chitin or calcite and this
is
absolutely useless piece of knowledge. We can not be absolutely
sure
it hasn’t devoured us because it could have done this, however
so
delicately and subtly we think it hasn’t, we think we ourselves
have entered it, we are just going through it while it pays no
attention to us, is not interested in us at all, not even
noticed us,
as if we were immaterial spirits penetrating the thick wall
though it
is the other way round: we don’t doubt we are material, at least
the majority of us, but we are not sure if the t h i c r i c k e t is.
Speaking and writing metaphorically the t
h i c r i c k e t is like a school
of fish. This comparison says a lot about the character of
t h i c r i c k e t
although it is absolutely wrong – it would be right if it was as
dispersed as t h i c r i c k e t
is. What does it mean? Has anybody ever heard
a dispersed scattered metaphor? The t h i
c r i c k e t can’t be drawn
because its external form is too unstable and changeable – it’s
much easier to draw a cloud which looks like a granite rock when
compared to a t h i c r i c k e t .
However we can’t draw a conclusion the
internal form of the t h i c r i c k e
t is as changeable and unstable as the
external one. Although we are inside it, we see it from outside
as if
it was turned. Yes, that’s the way it is. Or it is not. > > > >