I’m a bit confused. I can certainly see the part about “multiple
consciousness,” but I don’t think that all text is hypertext, unless we’re
referring to the fact that words themselves are radiating energy fields
that always mean and suggest more than at first appears. But no, if we are
going to grant “hypertext” a meaning then it has to be in terms of our idea
of text — it won’t do to say that text is already hypertext, for (if you
catch my drift) then we’ll need some designation like hyper-hyper-text
and we wouldn’t want to start injuring the language like that.

But this idea of “multiple consciousness” suddenly clarified some things
for me, mainly why it is that we’re drawn to — and maybe always will be —
the linear text. It’s because we are multiple, our consciousness when
ambient is distractingly refracted and this results in a feeling of (often)
not quite being here. I know that I read to combat my inner distractedness,
that I use the linearity of text, and of the process of reading, as a
focusing lens. Immersion in the language, which is tamed down from
multifariousness by narrative intention, marshals my free floating
consciousness, directs it, and the result is that I feel (often) a
heightened sense of self. How is this? I’m reading about Binx Bolling but
feeling more like Sven than before — it’s because of this gathering of the
rays.

Hypertext, therefore, would be a kind of redundancy, taking the distributed
energies of consciousness and distributing them even more widely, more
eccentrically.

Return to the Dialog