In a Neoist view, the world is not collision of things in space, but a dissimilar row of each independent phenomena. Neoism does not conceive of the spatial as lasting in time. Since each state is irreducible, the mere act of giving it a name implies falsification. The paradox however is that epistemologies exist in Neosim, in countless numbers. There are Neoists who consider a certain pain, a green tinge of the yellow, a temperature, a certain tone the only reality. Other Neoists perceive all people having sex as the same being, and all people memorizing a line of Homer as Homer. Another group has reached the point of denying time. It reasons that the present is undefined, that the future has no reality than as present hope, that the past is no more than present memory. Yet another group has it that the history of the universe is the handwriting produced by a minor god in order to communicate with a demon; that the world is an emblem whose subscription is partly lost, and in which only that which happens every three hundredth night is true. Another believes that while we are asleep here, we are awake somewhere else, so that everyone is two. Books are rarely signed, and the notion of plagiarism does not exist. It has been established that all literature is the work of only one ageless and anonymous writer.
definition from website the seven by nine sqaures- an attempt to create the illustion of an art movement, or to start a movement by declaring it already exists. not very successful, but then isnt that what how most movements begin? its only when people already take them for granted, that in retrospect you can trace out roots and beginnings, that otherwise would be dismissed as unconnected and irrelevant.
rather reminds me of dada, in its anti-art stance, defining itself by what it is not, and in its political implications.
amazon: house of nine squares - the book by Florian Cramer.
I haven't read it, and to be honest don't intend to, but the idea of an invented identity, that can be adopted and used at will is probably what appeals to me most about this whole concept:
"Karen Eliot is a name that refers to an individual human being who can be anyone. The name is fixed, the people using it aren't. The purpose of many different people using the same name is to create a situation for which no one in particular is responsible and to practically examine western philosophical notions of identity, individuality, originality, value and truth.
Anyone can become Karen Eliot simply by adopting the name, but they are only Karen Eliot for the period in which they adopt the name. Karen Eliot was materialised, rather than born, as an open context in the summer of 1985. When one becomes Karen Eliot one's previous existence consists of the acts other people have undertaken using the name. When one becomes Karen Eliot one has non family, no parents, no birth. Karen Eliot was not born, s/he was materialised from social forces, constructed as a means of entering the shifting terrain that circumscribes the 'individual' and society."