It seems like a write the same things over and over (as I once told someone; the person said well just stop). would that it were so easy: I can’t really stop and I can’t really get started properly, doomed to create these little fractal like pieces, all the fragments embedded once in the other, trying to avoid a Unified Fail theory, still trying to make sense of things. Oh there is plenty of sense to be made at the surface…
O. “My brother! You are like the rudimentary state of the slime mold, condemned to be a distributed allotment of self along a curve, except all the bits and pieces just flop around, never congealing around the signa, the one pointing over to the other. You use the word’ experimental’ to justify this useless expendiure OF nothingness ON nothingness”
I’ve never claimed I had anything to say fat head. Yes you are making me angry now. Why don’t you go someplace else and play.
O “You know I cannot do that brother. we are both integral to the task…”
Oh yeah? What task is that I don’t see any flippin’ task.
O “Everyone has a task. Sometimes it is accomplished by not knowing it, other times the other way around, the only other sense that can be made is in the particular. And it depends on which end of the stick you hold and the firmness or slackness of the grip with which you wield it.”
You’re making even less sense than usual O.
O “The sense is not mine to make; it is yours.”
Ever since the escape he had developed this sense of law, place, self, home and homelessness with O. before and it always spiraled around itself, never coming to any resolution. The anomia was just as painful as the para-nomia, the rule and the ruleless both forming sickly bittersweet toxins in the conversation. He knew, in a black sort of way, what was coming next.
“If punishment could be provoked merely by the arbitrary actions of those who violate the law, then the law would be in their control: they would be able to touch it and make it appear at will; they would be masters of its shadow and light. That is why transgression endeavors to overstep prohibition in an attempt to attract the law to itself — all it ends up doing is reinforcing the law in its weakness. The law is the shadow toward which every gesture necessarily advances; it is itself the shadow of the advancing gesture.”Michel Foucault (1989)
O “YES! that is it perfectly! Without knowing perfectly what it indicates; that non-knowing is the shadow of the advancing gesture, Vampires of the Law! And the shadow disappears at illumination’s greatest intensity, when the light is overhead. But it has not gone for good. The law is waiting for the next gesture, a vampiric waiting for the next gesture to draw close, they are the sides of the same abyssal yearning–maybe even extending to Nietzsche’s Appollonian/Dionysian divided continuum. An ancient darkness indeed, moving from chthonic geo-logic to the furthest futurist astro-logic.”
Well you are off your rocker O. If the Law hears you speaking in tongues like this you may be put INTO an abyssal container, doomed to weave above your own black hole.
O sputtered: ” But but but this is the nature of the small town, wires visible, is it not? Are there no messages EITHER lawfully OR unlawfully, sent? No mysteries of the shadow?
‘Only gradually from the fragment, through shrouded simulacra, especially those relating to us, a subject takes shape from the marasma, artfully garnered, amassed and dissolved . . .The melody or song under the text, leads the divination forward, weaving a pattern of invisible fleurons and ornamental endpieces; Words are displayed with their myriad facets, the most unusual and the most apt for the spirit, our centre of resonance; the spirit which perceives them outside the normal order of things, like an echo in a cavern, for as long as their mobility and unspoken effect lasts; words ever ready for a reciprocal kindling of lights in the distance or at a chance slanting angle, until they fade.Mallarmé (quoted in Saussure’s anagrams and the analysis ofliterary texts, Peter Wunderli in The Cambridge Campanion to Saussure)
O.K. I’m angry now for some reason. What do you say to this Mr. Big Shot O.?!
O: “Only on Judgment Day will the meaning of history (a meaningthat cannot be mastered or possessed by “man or men”) emerge fromthe political unconscious and come to light. Only on Judgment Daywill the past come into full possession of its meaning: a meaning inwhich even the expressionless of history (the silence of the victims, themuteness of the traumatized) will come into historical expression.Shoshana Feldman The Juridical Unconscious”
But O, Feldman reads this Benjamin –and New Testament Paul also- in a secular, revolutionary, perhaps even metaphorical light instead of a Benjaminian messianic eschatology. WB is much more aware of the likely impossibilty of human justice ‘coming to a head’ minus any sort of , well, divine intervention. Cultural apparatuses EMBODY the very thing they are trying to extricate and remediate, i.e. injustice; history shows many things but the very least thing that it shows is that revolutions themselves embody injustice of one form or another, with the following history setting up various justifications for the injustices endured by ‘the opposition’. The only ‘fair witnesses’ are indeed those who are completely espressionless: the dead. That is why the idea of their return exceeds all cultural strategies even as the idea of return is hijacked by zombies etc —showing that the dead, even if they DO come back must remain expressionless, except for an inchoate ferocious, chthonic and ravenous rage., the complete and denuded fury of the outside totally inhabiting the inside, thereby reversing the whole course of history AND prehistory, which amounts to the rage of the subject, the self, the human, against all that would oppose it. At THIS endpoint language itself becomes nothing but a shriek, life kicked away, its scaffolding gone, nothing but glossalalic ruin. The onlying which is for sure is the ‘misappropriation’ of the dead and the syncope which invariably happens when ‘bounds are put on rightiousness. See the rest of Feldman’s glazing detournement in the terms back into trauma. In the case of a fully secured secularizaton, the only thing which CAN come from death is a zombie …or some software equivalent. Any other claim for the dead must reside in some species of theology.
O: “Chaos generates the law, but only the law will allow us to gain access to chaos.”