If the report works to
solidify the office and cement its power, the contract serves as an
indicator of this power, and, in a sense, it gives a more truthful
view of the office, with regards to power, than the report itself
gives. We have been more critical of the report because we care more
about it, and about the reporters, because the report arises at the
bottom and slowly makes its way to the top, it is a mark of
accomplishment for the office, while the contract arrives from the
top directly at the lap of the lowly worker. But the contract is also
an important document: the contract is the basis for the legitimacy
of the piece of paper and the words upon it; in other words, the
analysis of documents as pieces of paper with words on them begins
with the analysis of the contract. Let us look at the contract and
attempt to show why and how it emerged, and what its particular role
is. The contract is any document which makes the relationship between
the two parties a relationship of predictability; it is a stabilizing
document. The office is the meeting place of the two parties to a
contract, it is the point of contact between two bodies bound by the
contract. Just as the report individualizes the body, because each
person has to offer on his/her own to the report, the contract
collectivizes the bodies, it brings the two parties together and
begins the process where one subject becomes concerned of the other
subject's well-being for the duration of the contract. Just as the
report makes each point in the hierarchy visible to the document, the
contract makes every worker visible directly to the boss. What is
most important is that in today's society, the contract is the
substitute of 'act of ownership': whereas previously things could be
said to be 'owned,' bought and sold in acts and trades, today, things
are said to be contracted out, and the owner of the service remains
intact for the foreseeable future. Of course we know that the body
can be contracted out, but what is most difficult to understand is
that land too can be and is always contracted out, that is, land too
is usually a service. It is difficult to understand this because we
only think of small portions of land and how they have been bought
and sold, and we believe in the power of money, such an informal and
casual document that it really should not be taken seriously in the
analysis of documents. But we must now venture to look at large land
owners: they are not simply ready to part ways with land for gold or
other substitutes. Rather, land is contracted out, a document is
prepared which gives land for use for a period of time. The confusion
between contract and purchase comes from the length of time: some
contracts are so long, running for generations upon generations, that
it seems the land has been purchased, but this is usually not the
case. The reason that contracts are long is because the owner sees
himself/herself as unchanging within that period of time, it is not
that the land's value, productivity etc doesn't change that the
contract is signed, but that the qualities within ownership don't
change. The chief quality of ownership which has to be constant in
order for a contract to remain is power: as soon as the boss senses
that his/her power is weakening, he/she exercises whatever power is
left in order to modify or terminate the contract. Getting back to
the office, the contract certifies not that the lowly worker will
not change, but that the leadership and authority of the office will
not change. The office as a place of authority is established in the
contract: the longer the contract, the more it means that the office
as a place of authority will not change. The contract document,
therefore has two roles: it is upheld as long as the office is a
place of authority, but it is discarded as soon as the office loses
its authority.
Friday, January 24, 2014
The Report Document
A
particular type of document is circulating today, making its
impact felt far and wide, but strictly within the office. This document, like most documents these
days, starts from the office, which is effectively a factory of and for documents. The office is a dominant mode of socializing subjects, and it manages subjects through the circulation of
documents. It is the contact with the document, the document-body
contact, which is all important. This document we are analyzing is
known as 'the report' in general language. Its format, like the format
of most documents these days, is flexible, which means that we cannot
say much in the way of definition about the report. Rather, it is
mostly defined for what it is supposed to do rather than what it is,
that is, it is defined in terms of its objectives and goals. This is
where we face a problem: the report's given objectives are to
facilitate openness and accountability, and in this sense the report
is supposedly something dedicated to the public sphere. When one
writes a report, it is supposed to clarify one's actions for the
general public; it can be accessed by the public, supposedly; it is meant for a presentation to the public. But, in
actual fact, the purpose of the report is totally for the private
sphere, the report's objective is to facilitate a particular type of
enclosure of the office's subjects, from the lowly writer of the
report to the boss who reads it. This is an enclosure/imprisonment of
all the points along a hierarchy, in a sense, it is the imprisonment
of the boss itself within the logic of privacy. With the printer and the computer, we have managed to create the conditions for our own perpetual imprisonment, for the stream of documents is endless...This, however, is a special type of imprisonment. It is not the imprisonment where all prisoners are equal, as in a jail. But it is a hierarchical imprisonment...Additionally, the report has
been arranged in its relation to human subjects in such a way that
any agency with regards to the document is purely stylistic and not
substantive. This is so because the writer of the report is so lowly
as to not know the exact workings of the office, so he/she offers up
stylistic points for the report. At the other end, the boss is so
high up and concentrated upon his/her goals as to offer the report
something which cannot be accurately understood by the other workers,
in other words, stylistic points only. So, we begin to see how the
report is not really a document full of content that relates the
office to the public sphere, but rather, it distorts the office in
the eyes of the public completely. Most importantly, by implicating
all the hierarchical positions of the office together, it solidifies
the authority chain in the office, it makes the points in the chain
visible as it passes through, and rather than serving at the opening
between the public and the private sphere, it is first and foremost
totally a private, official thing. But what is the private office, or, what is the difference between the private office and the public sphere? The difference is created by one other document, it is the document known as the contract.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Use
One likes newness. It is for this reason that we find more and more inventions, to begin with, and that we find more inventions that are being made for the hand, that is, they are small, so that one can twist and turn it, marvel at it...it never gets old. But, even when it never gets old, one realized a second quality it has: that is that it will be short lived, in the sense that in one's mind it will be replaced by something else. We will later see that this is not just because of a superficial character of the thing, but something about the new things makes one feel uncomfortable, so that it has to be quickly disposed, even if it is replaced by something else which is pretty similar...But still, we must all take a moment to really marvel at man's ability to resist change, to look at the new things, to think about it, just because it is in one's hand, and even if it is the most banal thing in the world...but it is in the hand means that it is to be looked at, considered. This is what new things are about.
But we all know that we must come back to the use of the thing. It is this which most concerns us and occupies us. There is already a hardening of the heart. So, a proper way of handling the thing is then discovered...the phase of fooling around is gone. The thing has dials and smaller components, but what we are really talking about is a machine which expects the mobility of the whole body...the human body is itself the signal which makes the new thing work. The thing requires a certain ability to be mobile, and to be agile. It is a dance which turns on this machine...
For once, let us not focus more on the human being at the center of this episode. Rather, let us take a look at the great event that takes place, which is nothing other than the machine, the new thing, coming to life. It is a glorious process to say the least. It begins with the movement in which the thing slips away from our minds, and high up in the sky it comes alive. And from up there in the sky it pokes holes in our body, which effectively makes our body immobile. And what we do is sit here and be witnesses. So we are to pause, the machine does its work, and we begin to think that we have put it to use. After the moment when the machine eludes us and springs to the sky to display itself in all its glory, there is the blinding light and sound that comes from it. The machine, in a sense, takes a life, it becomes more than machine, it is more than machine, it is like a human thing, it is not to be contained within this universe, it wants to be free.
And as we are witnessing all this--the machine in the sky with its light and sound--we begin to get away from utility, a utility as it applied to this machine is short lived for us. Rather, we begin to realize that we are to only witness this machine, for, at this moment that the machine has raised itself to the sky, and has begun to emit lights and sounds, we realize a new feeling, that one called 'danger.' We cannot be close to this machine. We do not handle it. This machine wanted more life than we ever did...
But we all know that we must come back to the use of the thing. It is this which most concerns us and occupies us. There is already a hardening of the heart. So, a proper way of handling the thing is then discovered...the phase of fooling around is gone. The thing has dials and smaller components, but what we are really talking about is a machine which expects the mobility of the whole body...the human body is itself the signal which makes the new thing work. The thing requires a certain ability to be mobile, and to be agile. It is a dance which turns on this machine...
For once, let us not focus more on the human being at the center of this episode. Rather, let us take a look at the great event that takes place, which is nothing other than the machine, the new thing, coming to life. It is a glorious process to say the least. It begins with the movement in which the thing slips away from our minds, and high up in the sky it comes alive. And from up there in the sky it pokes holes in our body, which effectively makes our body immobile. And what we do is sit here and be witnesses. So we are to pause, the machine does its work, and we begin to think that we have put it to use. After the moment when the machine eludes us and springs to the sky to display itself in all its glory, there is the blinding light and sound that comes from it. The machine, in a sense, takes a life, it becomes more than machine, it is more than machine, it is like a human thing, it is not to be contained within this universe, it wants to be free.
And as we are witnessing all this--the machine in the sky with its light and sound--we begin to get away from utility, a utility as it applied to this machine is short lived for us. Rather, we begin to realize that we are to only witness this machine, for, at this moment that the machine has raised itself to the sky, and has begun to emit lights and sounds, we realize a new feeling, that one called 'danger.' We cannot be close to this machine. We do not handle it. This machine wanted more life than we ever did...
Saturday, January 18, 2014
And, Or, Not Gates: Electra in Oedipus' Theater
Psychoanalysis
borrows heavily from the myth of Oedipus. In the myth, Oedipus kills
his father and sleeps with his mother. First, the interpretation of
these particular points from the myth is itself a psychoanalytic practice. Perhaps psychoanalysis wished to derive a
sense of authority and legitimacy by being able to speak to the world
of myth. However, it is now our task to complicate this relationship
between psychoanalysis and Oedipus by bringing into the equation an
investigation into the nature, the needs and the form of any
myth. We will try to show that the Oedipal myth, and myth in general
(psychoanalysis borrows heavily from many myths, not just that
of Oedipus) has to be reinterpreted, not just directly in its
content, but in the form that the myth is presented in. One of the
main assumptions here is that the myth does not reproduce and
re-present what is existent in society, but the myth is rather a pure
fabrication, the content of which society later mimics.
The
nuclear family in the Oedipal myth is equated with the nuclear family
in the analysand's ("patient's") life. Basically, the analysand, in the Oedipal
stage, identifies with Oedipus, and, like in the myth, wishes to kill
his father and 'sleep' with his mother. Psychoanalysis has progressed
by looking at the details of what these Oedipal wishes mean, by
attempting to go into the specifics of the content of the myth. Our
assertion here is that what this does is nothing more than legitimize
and strengthen the role of the family in an Oedipal analysand's life.
In a sense, in the psychoanalytic logic, it is through the prince's
conquests that the king and queen are 'crowned' as such. The real
family borrows from the mythic family and even begins to mimic it.
The current interpretation of the myth of Oedipus is nothing other
than the attempt on the part of capitalism to 'enclose' the family
with a model. The model has been made simple (you are Oedipus,
your father is the king and your mother is the queen. There, you
wanted to be a part of a myth and you got it.), because, for a
variety of reasons, everyone wants to be a part of the grand myth and
the mythical; everyone wants to be Oedipus, despite his terrible
wishes. Indeed, bringing the terrible wishes out in the open, which
psychoanalysis has done, only goes to take the 'sting' out of these
wishes, by making it public and therefore seem inevitable.
Additionally, the attraction is not just being a part of a myth, but
also of being a part of psychoanalysis, which is a dominant body of
knowledge in its own right. With contact with psychoanalysis and the
myth that advertises it, the family perhaps felt a form of social
mobility and recognition.
Some
of the following questions regarding the Oedipal myth have therefore
been suspended: when and for what purpose did the mythic form emerge?
What was the way that the myth was presented/exhibited? What about
the myth's audience? In short, what is the way in which the
population comes to face the myth? In front of all these questions,
the question regarding the myth's details about the mother/queen (how
does your mother feel about this? in which question the analysand becomes a 'critic' of his own show) and the father/king seem
secondary. The given questions at the beginning of this paragraph add a much needed social contextualization of the myth to its analysis.
Our
main aim here is to establish a new relationship regarding the
Oedipal family: this relative to the family is the individual who
does not completely flee the family and neither is she completely
within it, she is, rather, somewhere in between. She is at the
mid-point between abandoning the family and being within it. She
recognizes the family as a figment of reality, as something which has
to be reckoned with and which has to be engaged with. It is a
dominant institution of our times. But she also recognizes that the
family is in crisis, and that it needs a new mythic form, not just
content, to solve this crisis.
It
is our belief that the myth began to take shape in the theater. The
theater was the site where it was presented, where the myth was
played out. The theater was a dominant cultural formation and
practice, and it was perhaps influenced as much as anything else by
political and economic interests. Although we perhaps cannot use the term
working-class to look at Greek civilization, that such a class
existed which had to be pacified and kept in place is a given.
Indeed, in Greek civilization, we have the beginnings of the
inter-play of different institutions, the management of different
social units and formations, and the display of different tactics to
stabilize power and dominant interests. And, we have the beginnings of the study of society. So, we will venture forth
with the assertion that a particular way of presenting myth has
prevailed since the Greeks which has privileged the Oedipal myth, the
nuclear family, the son (Oedipus) and has many other impacts to the
present day.
Let
us begin to give the myth a sort of functional status. In short, let
us make the myth a successful cultural event resulting from a series
of functional points that perform certain processes with respect to
one another. We are applying to the myths the logic gates (the AND
gate, the OR gate and the NOT gate) that are prevalent in computer
science and very basic computer and mathematical programming
language. It is through these gates that the myth was first
programmed. In the mythical theater, there is first the actors, then
there is the 'Greek chorus,' and then there is audience. The actors
are the OR gate, since each actor, in his/her enunciation, begins
after another actor has finished his bit. There is either this actor
OR that one. Then there is the NOT gate: this is the audience, it is
NOT with regards to enunciation, it is never present, it doesn't act,
it is NOT on stage and so on...Then there is the AND gate. This is
the gate of the chorus, which enunciates in such a way that it is
both this actor AND that actor, and this actor AND the audience. It
is the in-between gate, it combines two elements in its expression.
The myth is therefore not about the King, the Queen and the Prince,
but rather, it is about the three logical gates, namely the actor
(OR), the audience (NOT) and the chorus (AND). We say this in order
to show how the myth performs a mathematical, functional role, and we
can therefore begin to determine the success of the mythic content,
particularly of the Oedipal myth, with regards to the way the three
gates are contextualized.
Why
have we given the different components in an Oedipal myth the status
of functions? Precisely to show that the form in which the myth is
presented is more important than the content of the myth. The content
has been mimicked by the population, with the help of psychoanalysis,
but the form is what is hidden. The form is also strong and powerful,
and we hope to have shown that the myth is indeed more powerful than
psychoanalysis, no matter how much psychoanalysis poses as having
included the myth within its discourse. This means that
psychoanalysis will itself progress beyond the Oedipal myth, but it
will always have one or another myth to support it. This is so
because psychoanalysis is supported by the myth in a peculiar way:
the analyst poses as the chorus/AND gate, with the OR gate as the
conscious and unconscious actors of the analysand (because it is
always unconscious OR conscious and never both at the same time, it
is either the dream or the reality, so to speak), and the NOT gate as
the rest of the nuclear family. We therefore have the analyst
occupying the AND gate in psychoanalysis, and generalizing the 'rest
of the nuclear family' to one gate. Further, psychoanalysis attempts
to distance the individual from the family, and replaces whatever
feelings may have arose for the family by the feelings and actions
towards the unconscious...the analysand becomes actors. There
is a dominance of the OR gate, the gate of the actors, over the other
two gates. To conclude, it is our belief in this paper that the
nuclear family must be given two gates, both the AND and the NOT
gates. In other words, the psychoanalyst must be a position/function closely involved with the family itself. This is the
distanced functional position of Electra with respect to the Oedipal
family.
Unlike
the son, the daughter Electra cannot express herself in the family
without recourse to the mythic form. But, we have not attempted to
romanticize the daughter's problems because we have not provided
content of a particular myth with which the daughter measures herself
and her marginalized status. The problem of psychoanalysis is that
the analyst comes to occupy the daughter's functional position with
regards the Oedipal, nuclear family. Ultimately, what psychoanalysis
and the mythic form as highlighted can and must offer is a type of
knowledge for the daughter to feel free with respect to the nuclear
family. As a side note, in theater, the chorus must not be completely
removed, or be made simple and mechanical as it often is, the bastion
of function and form, but, it must embody and reflect the relevant
emotions and undercurrents of the time. In one sense, the chorus must
always be present, socially relevant and analytic.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Fillings
It was great to feel taken aback by the sheer emptiness, the vast expanse. There was a general feeling among everyone, as demonstrated by the hum in the backdrop, that time had been harnessed, which is to say that much time had passed, which perhaps implies that we are already in a historic moment in its own right...yet nothing had changed. It was so tailor-made-for-contemplation, this emptiness, that it was about revealing an eerie feeling, a feeling that, indeed this emptiness was made for contemplation--but even before that, that it was made, and made by whom, perhaps by someone from a higher realm. In any case, there was silent contemplation before this emptiness.
But the mind, as always, began to wander, and it is not just a day dream to which it wanders, as is often thought. But, it began to be more observant and concentrated, and it began to pick at things from the 'emptiness' before it. And the big realization dawned: this emptiness isn't empty at all, but rather, it is characterized by the removal of something of which there are marks there, and, it is then figured out, that there had been events before the emptiness, and, understanding that something came before emptiness, that it is not pristine emptiness, for the hard-to-please mind, emptiness begins to lose its aura.
It is because it loses its aura, and not because emptiness elicits a drive to be filled, that the man and his mind move forward, towards filling the empty thing, or rather, of composing fillings which are then thrown towards the empty. This movement towards inventing fillings is the historic step, the step everyone is obsessed about, so let us first focus on other things. Let's pay attention to: man furnishing and inventing his tools, or buying tools from the universe, or trading the tools he has with those of the mind (for the mind is always ready to make a trade). And then, after this there is the cleansing of the body, the general process of the readying for the use of tools, which is nothing other than the ritual before entering history, history which is so selective...before which, once again, one has to bend one's knees as if a slave to emptiness, and not just emptiness this time, but the silence which speaks of anticipation.
Let's then make a small description of tools, the first of which and one which we will thus focus on is the mind itself...the mind which is a tool of trade. And after this very short description, let us move on to what we are all expecting here anyways, the nitty-gritty specifics, as far as we can proceed to highlight them, of the historic moment itself. Between you and I,I must say that even this focus on the historic moment will be short, given that we are generally faced with a loss for words in the historic.
So, a description of tools: they are mechanical, but that doesn't mean that a lot of experience nor energy is needed to use them. Only a deft touch here, a short method there, an instruction here and there...that is all there is to use tools. The tool is about knowledge rather than physical force (and thus can't we discern the influence of the mind upon the tool here?) And then, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, one knows how to use tools! But, one may know how to use tools, yet know nothing of it, there are a lot of things unknown about them, there is just too much knowledge about them...one is more enamored by the deft touch, the bit of instruction, and then: the historical moment...
So, with a deft touch, tools have been accessed. And now we enter the realm of the historic moment: and it is the moment when the man begins to use tools on the emptiness. And the only thing to do with emptiness is to fill it, and so he begins to fill it, with his tools at hand, but he does so in such a way as to make the emptiness artful, and in such a way, quite peculiarly, that no longer makes emptiness stand out nor the work upon it, but rather, both seem to be on their own, and at peace. This is ideal work from man, the best he has done. And the tool too is intact, it never wears out. True, it is traded, but it is always in use. But like all else, it is lost.
In this historic moment, the man performs many things, he does several acts all at once. And he continues to trade with the mind, the mind gives something, and itself gets lost in the universe of ideas. There are great feats by the man and his tools, the man tries to do justice, he tries to do the right things, he tries to say and speak the truth, he tries to do things in clarity and so on and so on....but what one sees, for now, at this historic juncture, one is invited, to witness, and what one sees is that the emptiness now filled with fillings, but not completely, and it peeks in at times, this emptiness, in all its glory, this emptiness, and everyone says, remembering the past, the pre-historic, 'Oh, that emptiness, this emptiness.'
But the mind, as always, began to wander, and it is not just a day dream to which it wanders, as is often thought. But, it began to be more observant and concentrated, and it began to pick at things from the 'emptiness' before it. And the big realization dawned: this emptiness isn't empty at all, but rather, it is characterized by the removal of something of which there are marks there, and, it is then figured out, that there had been events before the emptiness, and, understanding that something came before emptiness, that it is not pristine emptiness, for the hard-to-please mind, emptiness begins to lose its aura.
It is because it loses its aura, and not because emptiness elicits a drive to be filled, that the man and his mind move forward, towards filling the empty thing, or rather, of composing fillings which are then thrown towards the empty. This movement towards inventing fillings is the historic step, the step everyone is obsessed about, so let us first focus on other things. Let's pay attention to: man furnishing and inventing his tools, or buying tools from the universe, or trading the tools he has with those of the mind (for the mind is always ready to make a trade). And then, after this there is the cleansing of the body, the general process of the readying for the use of tools, which is nothing other than the ritual before entering history, history which is so selective...before which, once again, one has to bend one's knees as if a slave to emptiness, and not just emptiness this time, but the silence which speaks of anticipation.
Let's then make a small description of tools, the first of which and one which we will thus focus on is the mind itself...the mind which is a tool of trade. And after this very short description, let us move on to what we are all expecting here anyways, the nitty-gritty specifics, as far as we can proceed to highlight them, of the historic moment itself. Between you and I,I must say that even this focus on the historic moment will be short, given that we are generally faced with a loss for words in the historic.
So, a description of tools: they are mechanical, but that doesn't mean that a lot of experience nor energy is needed to use them. Only a deft touch here, a short method there, an instruction here and there...that is all there is to use tools. The tool is about knowledge rather than physical force (and thus can't we discern the influence of the mind upon the tool here?) And then, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, one knows how to use tools! But, one may know how to use tools, yet know nothing of it, there are a lot of things unknown about them, there is just too much knowledge about them...one is more enamored by the deft touch, the bit of instruction, and then: the historical moment...
So, with a deft touch, tools have been accessed. And now we enter the realm of the historic moment: and it is the moment when the man begins to use tools on the emptiness. And the only thing to do with emptiness is to fill it, and so he begins to fill it, with his tools at hand, but he does so in such a way as to make the emptiness artful, and in such a way, quite peculiarly, that no longer makes emptiness stand out nor the work upon it, but rather, both seem to be on their own, and at peace. This is ideal work from man, the best he has done. And the tool too is intact, it never wears out. True, it is traded, but it is always in use. But like all else, it is lost.
In this historic moment, the man performs many things, he does several acts all at once. And he continues to trade with the mind, the mind gives something, and itself gets lost in the universe of ideas. There are great feats by the man and his tools, the man tries to do justice, he tries to do the right things, he tries to say and speak the truth, he tries to do things in clarity and so on and so on....but what one sees, for now, at this historic juncture, one is invited, to witness, and what one sees is that the emptiness now filled with fillings, but not completely, and it peeks in at times, this emptiness, in all its glory, this emptiness, and everyone says, remembering the past, the pre-historic, 'Oh, that emptiness, this emptiness.'
Thursday, January 9, 2014
The navel of the dream is its signature
The part which constitutes
identity does not in any way need to refer to the whole on whose name the
identity can be constituted. In other words, it can be an insignificant part, a
non-thematic part, and, importantly, a part that is not entirely visible in its
relation to the whole to the recipient of the schema/material, when the
material is presented. The location of the part is still within the whole,
which is a form of traditionalism that pervades signification, but this is as
much determined by a will of the author as by any apparent manifestation of the
part. It is a small part, indeed, the smaller the part, the bigger its impact,
it seems, as if the small part can so position itself that it can form the
linkage and the node in the gaps between the bigger parts. Due primarily to its
size, it is a linking component, where things from the other parts pass through
in a way that only characterizes its partiality (that when a part of the other
component passes through it, another part of it has already left it, the
linkage cannot consume the whole of another part completely, and this is the
guiding principle of linkages), even among the other parts (which are active). As
a side note, I feel this could be, actually, a dangerous position: it can
topple the rhizomatic behavior of the more extensive parts, as a ‘rebellious
linkage,’ or, it can serve as the linkage that demonstrates that focus should
be on the more smaller components of a text/schema, as they provide the links,
it is they that provide the meaning of the relation/continuity between the
larger components of the text/schema. I am not vouching for the emphasis and
importance of the linkage of the schema wholesale over its more ‘fixed’ and
active elements (traditionally depicted by enclosures), but rather for the less
extensive connections, the seemingly smaller connections, not because they are
directly apparent as important, but they have been made so by the authors these
days. The composition of the material itself revolves, today, around the
‘signature’ element, not in the sense that the material emanates out of this
signature and is composed by a relationship with this signature, but rather that
this signature adds an arbitrary sense of continuity between the different
components, precisely in the presentation of this schema to the audience, and
the signature is also a sign of passage. The emphasis on the signature is not
within the text but only in its presentation, and it is a very dominating
signature, it is highly emphasized, in the presentation, as the key element
that holds the text together. The navel of the dream is a signature. What,
then, does the linkage show for the whole, for in the end we must think more of
the whole after all? It shows that the whole is composed of gaps, where other
elements can come in and form linkages. There are parts, gaps, and only then,
the whole, and in this sense, the whole is, paradoxically, not the whole at all.
Crucially, the whole cannot be filled by any other ‘active’ element, but must
be filled by a linking element, such is the nature of the gaps, i.e., the gaps
are narrow, and one cannot overlap the things that compose the whole except
through linking elements.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
other/Other: two ethics in Lacan
other/Other: two ethics in Lacan
Analysis,
and especially psychoanalysis, is imperial and colonial, in other
words, intrusive. Psychoanalysis expects individuals to share details
of their sexual life and dreams regularly, and also makes individuals
come clean about their innermost feelings and thoughts. Analysis, in
anthropology, perversely keeps the outsider in the scene, who has the
upper-hand and power in making judgments about cultures, cultural
products and subjects (individuals) without understanding the
specific context, history and feelings of the individuals involved.
That psychoanalysis and anthropology has been kept apart as
disciplines shows that those seeking control today wish to keep the
intrusiveness of analysis in general alive, it is a divide an conquer
strategy, and it has many positive consequences for those individuals
and societies. Some of these positive consequences of intrusiveness
can include such things as generating fear as an emotion, making the
analyst able to affect change in other places without causing much
disruption and, especially in the context of this paper, enabling
concepts and signs to be placed at depth within a developed theory
and knowledge. On the one hand, Lacan subscribes to intrusive
analysis and suspends the ethical question.
On
the other hand, Lacan is very aware of the ethical question regarding
the intrusiveness of analysis and knows that ethics inevitably causes
a disruption of analysis. Lacanian psychoanalysis generally has a
close proximity with ethics, Lacan articulating the ethics behind
psychoanalysis continuously in his seminars. Lacan was very concerned
with the ethical question, precisely because he saw behind the
question of ethics the very presence and possibility of reaching a
truth or not, not only reaching the truth, but rather considering its
existence, recognizing its existence, even without having to actually
articulate it. It is because truth is elusive in Lacan that the
question of ethics must be expanded, clarified and placed squarely as
one of the important components of Lacanian psychoanalysis. And it is
for an ethical turn regarding intrusive analysis that Lacanian
psychoanalysis may be subscribed to by analysts generally.
Two
Lacanian concepts can be considered thoroughly ethical concepts, that
touch on the issues of ethics, law and truth each in their own way.
We can take the rhyming nature of the two concepts to suggest that
they are two sides around each of the three issues we have just
highlighted in Lacanian psychoanalysis. These two concepts are the
concepts of other and Other (i.e., the big Other), which must be
looked at in turn to see what they have to show us regarding the
position of ethics in Lacanian psychoanalysis.
The
other is any individual who does not fit into the prevailing cultural
and social categories of a territorialized society. Any individual
that does not fit into the language, cultural make-up and societal
laws of the territory
is considered as an other of that territory. It is a common assertion
to make that the other of western societies today is the terrorist.
Not only does the terrorist, due to his religious and social
background, not 'fit in' with western societies, but he is out to get
western societies, it is his duty to break the laws prescribed in
western societies and act according to the formulated laws of his own
group. In this sense, the other is himself/herself an unethical
subject.
In
Lacan, this other can be analyzed and must be analyzed. Analyzing the
other is something that is integral to the workings of a text that
analyzes the rest of society, the non-othered society, for the terms
other and non-other, i.e., 'self,' are reflections. Therefore, Lacan
is intrusive into the other, as we all are inevitably intrusive into
the self primarily, and his ethics is suspended regarding this other.
The very term signifies that he is excluding a category of people
emphatically (for in Lacanian analysis, the point of his terminology
and concepts is not just to record observations but to directly
influence the reader regarding his stance on certain subjects and
individuals). Thus, the other is actively othered, excluded, and the
terrain of analysis as it applies to him/her is quite large in the
Lacanian texts. There is no question of intrusion and subsequent
ethical dilemmas. The other is, rather, free for all, an analytic
concept full of possibilities of descriptors. We can also
categorically other someone, we can make him/her feel excluded, and
there is no consequence in Lacan of doing this. The other is a
concept that demonstrates one side of Lacanian analysis with respect
to ethics: that we can suspend ethics while doing this type of
analysis as we suspend it doing any other type of analysis. But the
concentration of this suspension to such a narrow term and related
terrain suggests that even if we may leave the question of ethics
out, it is only in particular contexts, specifically, only in the
discussion of things that are othered. Just because we may other
someone doesn't mean we can leave ethics out in the whole field of
Lacanian analysis.
On to
the wholly different question of the big Other (from now on, just
Other). Let's begin by considering what Lacan considers the Other,
which may even shed some light into the reasons for his distantiation
from Freud's explanation of the Oedipus Complex. Lacan believes that
'the mother is the first Other.' We may begin our question into the
ethics of Lacanian analysis by looking at this one statement. What
the Other means in this context is that the mother lacks an
analytical descriptor. It means that the Other, the term, is a
deflective term, a deflection, whereas all the other words in this
statement derive their meaning in combination. It means, simply put,
that the analytic descriptor of the mother is elsewhere, it is not to
be found in this statement, it is 'Other' to this statement, it is
elusive. The function of the term Other in the statement 'the mother
is the first Other' is similar to the function of the word '#ERROR'
in a statement such as 'All elephants are #ERROR.' For all purposes,
we expect a coherent statement, where the last word comprises a
horizontal combinatorial relationship with the rest of the words and
produces a coherent meaning, namely an analytic descriptor about all
elephants. But we do not get that, instead, we get the breakdown of
the statement, and we get an incompleteness of the statement, there
seems to be something wrong with the computer that leaves the
statement incomplete. The word Other is a function in a statement
that is vertical in orientation, as if arising from another faculty
in Lacan's brain that shows that the analysis of the mother resists a
descriptor, exactly at the point that a descriptor is demanded. Other
fills in the place of an analytic descriptor. But the example with
the #ERROR function only goes so far, for the word Other signifies
possibilities rather than a stoppage, rather than a complete
obstacle. The word Other seems to show that there is a descriptor for
mother, and indeed there are innumerable descriptors, but in a sense,
any descriptor fits into the statement, and also no matter what
descriptor one uses, it doesn't quite complete the Lacanian
assertions and texts regarding the mother. In this sense, the Other
is called “radical alterity,” it doesn't fit into the text and
its purpose is not to combine the text but to spell its defeat.
How
does this fit into the question of ethics in Lacanian analysis via
law? The concept of the Other is a function, and whatever is Other
cannot be intruded into as a law. It gives the text a dimension of
mathematical law. Due to the function of Other, it is impossible to
totally deduce analysis and analytic descriptors from the statement
'mother is the first Other,' which means that analysis here is
stopped by the law of a function. Lacanian analysis is therefore not
about ethical preferences but rather about the impossibility of
having an objective ethical standpoint in the face of law. It is the
law inaugurated by the Other that makes Lacanian analysis less
intrusive and therefore ethically 'good.' It is the impossibility of
speaking the true analytic descriptor of the mother that makes the
mother significantly more untouched in Lacanian analysis than in
other analytic models. The Other deflects meaning, it makes meaning
elusive and it signifies the incompleteness of the sentence, and due
to this a final judgment on the mother cannot be passed, she cannot
be stamped with an analysis and she herself, as a being, can break
down and break apart the text, as if her presence was in the text of
Lacan, and the life of Lacan, beyond what Lacan could attempt to say
about her.
The Scar
The
Scar
Although
it could possibly be endless, or it could not be, for some reason it
was stuck on the man's mind, it was convincing the man, that it was
in fact endless. We are talking about this realm. This realm which
includes everything, and which as such may be endless, insofar as all
things that it includes only exist as signs to pay tribute to its
endlessness, and to give markers to the man's mind, as he reaches
further and further, that he will still find things...and slowly but
surely man began to sense that his position was that of being
defeated. Man is spoiled, and he thinks that at this point he is
nothing other than a loser in a game.
So
let us engage with man's mind, the thoughts he has which suggest to
him that this realm is indeed endless. This realm at issue, which, if
it makes things clearer, is actually a pretty concrete realm,
something, let us say, like a cloud, suddenly envelops the man's
senses, and the man believes that this universe of one particular
thing is endless and limitless. We are not talking about an age old
question about the infinite universe here, we are actually talking
about something concrete man happens to encounter one day, as he is
going about his duty. He encounters this realm, and it 'stuffs'
everything, there are no gaps and holes, there are no points that
exist outside of it. It is grand, too grand for the everyday, but the
everyday is where it happens to be...
Until
this point, man believes that he is lost within this realm, and it is
up to this point that he believes he has lost a game. He has lost a
struggle and not found the strength to challenge this realm, which
fills everything. Man himself is nothing, an undefined, in the field
of things which has an existence and presence. Man is, for the
majority at least, invisible...he is on the losing side of this
battle against the realm. And we must draw a certain general
conclusion here: that man is to always give primacy to this belief
that he is in a battle with this limitless realm.
But
then another realization dawns on his mind. Another observation,
which, in fact, signifies to him the possibility that God has
silently slipped in through the door, while he himself was drunk on
his own thoughts. For the new thought he has is this: 'look, this
thing, this realm, not only does it seem to exist in limitlessness,
and not only is it grand, but it is so grand that it is stifling. In
a sense, it stifles everything.
Everything has been pushed away, and destroyed into nonexistence by
this realm because it has an oppressive force acting outwards. And it
is not a spatial nonexistence, meaning that, it is not that things
are obliterated physically, but even as they are there, in front of
our very eyes, they are in fact non existent, non existent in the
universe and dimension that matters...But, and this is why I think I
haven't lost this battle just yet, why hasn't it stifled me? Why do I
not feel stifled? Why, unlike the inert and lifeless things in this
universe, am I alive and well and vital?'
This
realization in the mind of man not only leads to him optimistically
thinking of the possibility that he is in fact not on the losing side
against the limitless, but rather, that he is in the winning side,
that because he is not stifled by the limitless realm which hopes to
stuff everything, he is in fact the one which is doing the stifling.
And a far more 'evil' logic now circulates in the mind of man,
spinning a whirlpool with strands of possibilities, which is that the
man and the realm 'work together,' that man stifles part of the thing
into inertness and the realm stifles another part of the thing into
inertness. In a sense, man tops off what the realm tries to do. It is
an ideal partnership between a stifling limitless realm and the man
which cannot be stifled. But we must know better: for man is still on
the losing side, frustratingly for him, in a sense, because the one
weakness on the part of the realm now works for it.
But
let us say that the man himself is content in this new found thought.
What this means for us, is that man is now getting to a point that he
is willing to accept the easier convincing argument over the more
meandering one. But this new thought, that man and this realm of
limitlessness are partners, is a thought so powerful, so consuming
the man, and giving him so much energy that all its energy piles up
and up and forms for the man to hold in his hand a massive staff, a
rod, something with which, the man thinks, he can discipline. And he
strikes, not so much to control those inert things, for these things
are already dead, but to resist falling back into the idea that he is
in fact defeated, that he, from his very origination, has been
defeated. Any sense of real control over inert things is a fallacy.
If things have been controlled, they have been done so by another
agency, not man.
But
nobody has said anything about defeat. Nobody has said anything about
loss. It is, indeed, a part of life living in this realm. But when
man strikes and moves on, strikes with his rod and moves on, he
leaves behind something, a scar, something which does not signify a
loss, but rather, a failure, in the eyes of God who has slowly left
and shut the lights out.
But
we are here, we are to be forever with the man, for in a way we have
never been with him completely for him to fail us. What we can say to
the man is this: that man must not think that God has a special plan
for him, that he must not imagine that God will always be there for
him. Rather, man must think so that God's relationship to man is one
of many relationships, that, no matter how special in relation to the
realm man is, he is one of many to God. God does his duty with man,
just as with anything else, and he moves on...
Does a Thing Influence the Mind?
Does
a Thing Influence the Mind?
In
everyday life, we believe that the mind is something which is within
the body, somehow it is locatable within the body, and that it has
some form of relationship with the biological brain. In philosophy,
however, the problem of the mind (and the mind first of all has
always been a problematic thing in philosophy, as an obstacle is
problematic, and not easily accounted for by knowledges like biology)
is that the mind seems transcendent to the brain, to the body, and
indeed, to all the ways that we traditionally imagine the mind. What
this means is that, if we consider a super-entity, an entity which
encompasses all things, or houses all things, including the human
brain, then this entity is also a mind. To put it simply, it seems
that the mind houses the body and not the opposite way, and to extend
this, it seems that the mind houses the universe rather than the
universe housing the mind. The mind is, therefore, a transcendental
entity, a 'super-entity' which resists being housed by other things,
but rather, houses other things. It is, to put it simply, any entity
that houses the human mind itself, in that, the mind of philosophy is
not the human mind, it is somewhat like God's mind. An interesting
issue that arises, as a side note to this paper, is whether then that
we are in fact characters in the universe (a 'dream' of God, if you
will) of God's mind, that is, are we within God's mind?
The
mind, therefore, is a super-entity, which means that, all things may
be figments of the mind...as some say, it
is all in the mind...or,
at the very least, and this is the chief concern for this paper, all
things may be influenced by the mind, may be imbued by the mind, in
that, we perceive things differently from how they are. It is the
mind, for instance, that perceives a piece of paper as litter or as
news. This depends on the mind, that is, things are dependent on the
mind, if no entirely, then partially. The question we have,
therefore, is whether, as the mind has influence upon things, and
imbues things with meaning etc, and decides the fate of things (if
the paper is news, it is read, and if it is litter, it is thrown
away...) whether in a similar vein, things have an influence upon the
mind? If we say that things indeed do have an influence upon the
mind, then we are properly metaphysically dualistic, but, if we
consider that the mind is not influenced by things, then we have a
somewhat monistic understanding of the universe where things indeed
could possibly be figments of the mind. So, does a thing influence
the mind?
First,
let us recourse briefly to the normal, everyday understanding of the
mind. In this understanding, we have the case where the mind
depreciates, as it is a part of the body, and so, it dies when the
body dies. Since death is linked with the external world of things,
it seems then that the mind itself is imbued with the external world
of things, that it is influenced by things. Just as when things pass
through a machine in an assembly line, and that machine depreciates
as more and more things pass through it, the mind depreciates as more
and more things are considered. This is generally biologically
explained as 'ageing' for instance. The fact that one gets older
means that one's mind gets older as well.
But,
in this paper, we consider such a depreciation of the mind a
different phenomenon, something unrelated to our question. Our
question, rather, sees the mind as something more digital: as soon as
one wakes up or is born, one has mind. As soon as dies or goes to
sleep (let's ignore the phenomena of the unconscious and dreams here)
one loses one's mind. Let us consider that the mind is not a machine
that depreciates, in fact, let us say that the time period in which
we observe this mind is minutes and not years, so that we do not even
notice depreciation if it occurs. The mind, in our paper, does not
depreciate, but, it is switched on as soon as we are alive and
switched off as soon as we die. In short, what we mean by mind is
that ability to keep on perceiving, no matter how old one is, to keep
on being conscious, to keep on being mentally alive, so to speak. The
problem is indeed heightened by the fact that the mind is
digitalized. As any digital entity, it seems to work on its own
whims, turning on and off at will, and does not, importantly,
manifest a nuance to show that things indeed influence it, that is
begins as something and then becomes something else. The mind, it
seems, is too essential throughout, in that, it is mind at one point
and not-mind at another point of time.
The
nuanced question for this paper is whether things just pass through
the mind, without influencing the mind at all? We do know that things
pass through the mind, that things are what the mind is conscious of.
But, does the mind stay the same, in that, does it stay as it is
always when things pass through it? It seems, with recourse to the
digital mind, that it stays the same until it isn't so, out of its
own accord. It seems the mind ultimately changes, given the digital
mind, out of an influence of itself upon itself. It self-destructs in
spontaneity, it seems. So, we can conclude, firstly, that the mind
indeed does not get influenced by other things, that things just pass
through the mind without touching it. The mind is, in this scenario,
a gap, or a hole, a void and an absence, which does not get effected
and influenced by other things which pass through the hole. The
ultimate mind, the super entity, the non-human mind, is therefore
just an absence, a not there that allows the things of this world to
exist as they do. (Additionally, this is simply the negation of the
question of what the mind exists as
and
the bolstering of the question of what the mind exists for,
what
it exists to do.) It exists to influence other things, but, when
confronted by whether things have influence upon it, we have to say
no, since it is only an absence when encountered from the perspective
of things. Sure, things may attempt to influence the mind, and this
may be a fundamental nature of things, but all they ultimately do is
pass through it. Indeed, we may apply the sociological concept of
'wasted lives' to things and declare them as 'wasted independent
existences' because things are, in a sense, thoroughly dependent upon
the mind, insofar as they exist just for the mind to have an
influence upon them. This is the somewhat monistic viewpoint that we
were thinking of at the beginning of the paper. So, the thing passes
through the mind but does not press upon it.
This,
however, is not our final answer, for there is a serious case for
proper metaphysical duality as well. How then do things influence the
mind? How do things press upon the mind? Let us first consider the
nature of the mind dwelling upon the thing. It is my assertion here
that we began our observation and investigation into this phenomena
without addressing the crucial primary step regarding it. We
immediately felt that the mind, upon thinking of the thing at all,
has an influence upon the thing. However, what is the step before
that? What is the mind thinking for
when
it thinks of the thing? Why does the mind think of that particular
thing in the first place? It is my assertion here that, if we once
again begin to detach the mind from the human mind located in the
brain (something I believe here that monism is still guilty of), we
can safely say that the mind is not just our mind, but it is the mind
of everything, it is the mind of things. I do not mean it is the mind
of that tree when one is thinking of that tree, but rather, it is the
mind of all things in collection, it is the mind of a multiplicity of
which the tree is a part. The totality of all things has an influence
upon the mind. When the mind thinks of a tree, it is the tree which
comes alive, it is the tree which has a vitality, not because the
tree individually has influenced the mind, but because, it is the
multiplicity which influences the mind in a sustained manner. The
mind thinks of the tree on behalf of the multiplicity of things. It
is because the mind thinks on behalf of the tree can we say that
things do indeed influence the mind, indeed, all things altogether do
so. It is for the tree to come alive, to become more vital, that the
mind serves its duty to think of the tree.
We
cannot say, the tree does not have a mind of
its own,
it indeed does have a mind of its own!
The
mind, the super-entity, is a mind of all things and for all things,
precisely because it is also influenced by things. It is not an
authoritarian and elite mind, it is a mind of things, a mind of the
masses. The thing calls upon the mind to think not just of
it
but for it.
But that is not to say that the mind does not just think of the thing
either. It does both, of it and for it. In this way, the mind has
both an independent existence and a dependent existence, and so do
things. To end, we must say that there is no super-super entity
encapsulating the mind-of-things and the things themselves, the
external rim of this duality is the external most point of possible
observation and serious consideration.
Responsibilties
Responsibilities
The
best feeling came first in this episode. Let us say that, we have,
from the very beginning, been on the top of a mountain, and that, we
are to be here for a while, that there is no hurry to go elsewhere.
We have balance up here at the peak, it is not as if anything is
disturbing us.
So
the best feeling came when things were far off. But not, contrary to
what many have come to believe, when things are far and getting
further. And, it is not that this event does not make one happy, but
it is a case of whether the happiness arrives easily or is more
harder to come by. It is not as if, when things are pushed further,
one is more happy. Rather, it is a peculiar type of happiness that
comes from responsibilities coming closer...and we are not mistaken
here, for it is a happiness first and foremost, even though, with
time, it may appear to have been shrouded by other feelings. One can
call these things responsibilities only if one is to generalize, if
one is to believe in the general picture of things, if one is to not
move too close and trust this current perspective. But, in fact,
there are some that have real meaning, more than the more subjective
interpretation that it is a responsibility, it is rather, something
else, a thing, at the last instance...and to return to the
subjective, which one is always apt to do, it is nothing other than
something that one can savor.
And
whoever finds, at this distance, a feeling of satisfaction, an
intensity of contentment, a willingness to stay there, a death, does
not see something which others have considered special: that these
things which one will eventually encounter are in fact alive, and not
in the sense that each individual thing is alive, and has a certain
personality, or that its aliveness is imposing....but rather, it is
only a dance, a dance of a swaying motion...this way and that way,
and it causes a philosophical assertion to develop, which passes as a
bell ringing in the stillness of the void: that this is a dance based
on the footsteps of one's walk in the path towards responsibilities.
It
is, in fact, quite 'short sighted' to only observe the dance in all
this. For, to know what is really going on, consider this: the whole
aesthetic of this is, to put it a way, 'correct.' Everything fits in,
there are no points that seem disparate, and there is no feeling, the
general uneasy feeling fused with paranoia, that there are invisible
elements in this. The things are shining, and a general wind is
blowing, and the sound of one's footsteps as the sound of drums with
loosely woven leather...and everything feels correct.
And
what is going on most well, what is most fitting, in this path
towards responsibilities is nothing other than the path itself. When
one turns around, the path starts nowhere, and when one looks
forward, the path is quite picturesque, winding around like a snake
and shining golden in the gold...therefore what one actually falls in
love with, and is happy about, is nothing but the path, in relation
to which even the responsibilities seem distant.
Now
in close proximity to the responsibilities, one sees and contemplates
more on the things that one knew all along: that there are things
that one wanted, and there are things that one did not want, but,
most of all, one finds that the thing is taut: it doesn't yield,
which is to say that one has finally entered the general realm where
experience is paramount. And this experience is quite extreme, it is
not simply the experience where one believes that this encounter with
responsibilities is transitory, rather, this is the final encounter,
this is where the path ends...and one turns around and one sees the
path winding golden, and one knows that there is a great chance, an
enormous chance, that one stand back from this encounter and trace
the path back to nowhere...for, in a way, these things aren't
responsibilities yet. But what is special about this character, this
one that we have here, is that he gives in to the encounter, and he
lets the encounter consume him, he takes it all, he is a fully
responsible being.
Slows Steps on the Way...
Slow Steps on the
Way...
What
is it with rapidity, one would think, for, in this case, at least in
this case, it was a good question, and this being such a case that it could be
used as an example and offered up as a philosophy of the general law
which one believed, that is, that there was no use of rapidity...in
other words, this case would make a great argument for the
uselessness of rapidity...
And
so, things would begin slowly, as things often do, and they would go
through some of the necessary steps that 'human nature' had asked one
to make. They would follow a sequence, in other words, which was
slow. The first step, the slow step we are talking of, being
'inspection', for things had to be inspected first, and one has to be
careful not to go straight to the act with a thing that does not fit.
For there is, in a sense, a hole, in one's mind, that is a
placeholder for things, and all things must fit in it—and all
things do fit in it...Nothing short of infinity fits in it, but still
one has to go through the necessary steps, slowly, for inspection and
slowness seem aligned for some reason, but it could be just something
one does out of habit. Nonetheless, this thing did fit the mind, and
indeed, it was a perfect match, and this led one to question, quite
briefly, but indeed this too slowed things down a bit, which was
important as we have pointed out, the question as to whether the mind
was in fact plastic, which could be stretched or diminished for
things to fit it. Two things have happened in the first step when in
fact nothing has happened: the thing has fit the mind, and rapidity
seems to have been reasoned away from this...
Now
that rapidity has been established as dead, one can calmly move on to
the second step here. Just as nothing really happened in the first
step, nothing really happens in the second step. This is, in a sense,
and in one sense only, the step of 'further inspection.' This means
that it differs from the first step, because it goes further, but
that it is still inspection nonetheless. This was different: there
was an intimacy involved, there were moments involved when the past
would come flooding in...and there was time involved when time would
melt away, which means time was reduced in significance. It was, most
importantly, a time of belief in things. For one, one believed in
love here. One believed in those important events of the past. But
this was of course a disappointing time, a confusing time, because
one would find that nothing really fit together, that if one believed
one thing the other believed something else, that if one felt this
was important the other felt that was important. That is why we first
established the other as a thing in this story's first step, it is
first a thing because for one, it is truly lifeless, 'already
dead' in one sense...and in another sense so worthless that even
death is trivial when it happens to it. Therefore, the step of
'further inspection' is nothing other than the step where one
establishes the other as a thing. It is, in a sense, the step that
gets too close, from the perspective of building knowledge about the
other. And so, in the sleepless nights of burning arguments...one
asks, who knows to whom our feelings are really addressed, if they
are indeed addressed to anything or anyone? Thus ends the second step
on the way.
Two
steps and nothing has happened. One wanted things to be slow, but
things are in a standstill in another dimension. The third step is a
sacrifice of the highest degree: Everyone has been assembled. And
one rises to the top and tells them all: 'look, we are about to
partake in a sacrifice, partake in it and not just witness it, and so
please make sure that you do your part. My only note for the day is
this: that sacrifice has been problematized because it is considered
a 'cult of death', that it is considered all about death, and since
death is wrong, sacrifice is wrong...'...and of course one saw
that he was right, that we were doing this sacrifice neither for
death nor for God, but, quite simply, for the sake of a system of
steps...the slow steps on the way...to show that a system of steps is
so strong that even human life has to be taken away to legitimize
it...indeed, when human life is taken away by a system of steps, the
system, and any system, appears strong and serious...and death in the
series of steps is not the final step...death is also a slow step on
the way... therefore, all the people convened close to the top,
and they decided to bring a bowl...a bowl which they would leave by
their feet, and which would thereby fill with tears flowing...
*
In the above paragraphs, we moved all the way to men, but we must
maintain and try to argue that, up there, nothing happens: we started
with the thing's inspection, we then proceeded to a secondary
inspection, and finally we came upon sacrificial death at the hands
of men, which is nothing but a tertiary inspection, an inspection of
innards, if you will. In the passage beyond the '*', what we really
have is that the thing diminishes, and the men who killed it
diminishes, but that the system of steps is not closed, because
nothing in fact actually happened, and the system of steps has
neither begun nor ended. One realizes, giving a message from the top,
that, there, nothing happens. One climbs steps, but one never reaches
top nor bottom...all a series of steps where nothing happens. One
plays with time, slows things down...or brings things to a
standstill, but nothing happens when one does and when one doesn't.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)