Actualizing the Counteractuals: A Bad Mix?

From the first section of “Too Loud for Fear to Leave Us” by oddmadland:

A fear of missing out.
a negative anticipation of a negative future.

The pangs of what you are and what you are doing.
a negative present actuality.

he was going to do everything.
a positive anticipation of a positive future.

with every choice made to do something, there was an equal and opposite choice not to do something else.
alternative presents, both positive, leading to alternative futures, one positive, the other negative, as a repetitive abstraction.

Participating, participating, participating. Homelessly riding the scene.
positive present actuality, continuously.

Making exciting plans, only to break them for the last minute thrill of being in more than one place at once:.. of having done it, and having not done it.
positive anticipation of a positive future; negative actuality of a positive future; positive actuality of alternative futures, one positive, the other negative, made simultaneously present.

What he was missing became a presence, always there outside of what was happening.
positive actuality of negative present = negative actuality of positive present, as a constant abstraction.

Only when you’re truly nowhere can you be assumed to be everywhere. This was his last epiphany.
negative actuality = positive actuality, as a probabilistic abstraction.

One thought on “Actualizing the Counteractuals: A Bad Mix?

  1. If I’d excerpted an excerpt of this story in a Flânerie post it would have been labeled “Playground.” How did this particular story pop into my attention? I put up a comment on another blog, the author of this story liked it, tracked the link over here to Ficticities, liked two of my posts, signed on as a Ficticities follower. So I tracked back to the follower’s website, found this story, liked it, and devoted a post to it here, linking back to that story. So I had some expectation that whoever this person is would have liked this post, maybe commented on it as well, since I’d actually interacted with the writer’s text. That didn’t happen. Now I’ll acknowledge that my “Counteractuals” methodology is rather idiosyncratic, so it’s not surprising that a story author wouldn’t see the point of it.

    [The main idea is that, in ordinary thinking and action, humans interweave the here-and-now tangible actualities of the world with memories of the past, anticipations of the future, intentions and motivations, speculations about alternative possibilities. In short, real people occupy realities that are not actual, that are fictional. Fictional stories illustrate this intrinsically fictional aspect in their characters, which serves as a kind of “realism effect” to make the characters and situations seem more believable, more like nonfiction. It’s paradoxical, and I find it interesting.]

    Anyhow, as a follower of Ficticities the writer of this story would have received an email of this post. Did s/he read the post and decide not to like or comment? Or is the following of many websites deployed mainly as a tactic for drawing traffic to one’s own website? I.e., liking and following don’t necessarily reflect here-and-now engagement in a website, but constitute a way of building a path toward a desired future in which one’s own website attains popularity. I.e., it’s an actual here-and-now motive driven by a counteractual future orientation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s