SELF-MONUMENT
– What now, K? What's going on in that crazy head of yours? – Sabrina asked, the Kindly Light of the morning waking up between shenanigans around town, buying and repurchasing those stocks on her cell phone. – Furniture for a country house, and going back to reading Gogol, remembering that he would never have written his books if old Mother Russia had been motorized in those horse-ridden days, which almost all of his troika pages spoke of. The room crammed with cardboard boxes sways under my voice, tossing, grasping the windows, in its panic of wind. She speaks through her teeth, with a grimace as if she wanted to laugh, her throat stiffening. Her words come out as noises, now higher pitched, an octave above the background female noise.
– Cosmic ingredients: teeth, hooves, marrow, kicks of courage, necessary for the use of literature in equinoctial processes, with ebb and flow, conjunctions of the sun, moon, and planets with all the delusions of madmen lost in the street or in the woods, due to the quality of the liquid in their bodies, and their psychiatric salts of evocation of the lost soul. The effect of this within the personality, already long ago in time, bubbling primitively and "prehistorically," without literary chemistry capable of helping me. No, I wasn't reliving the years of a sorcerer's apprentice.
The heart of the rich, the egg of Hell, according to Murilo Mendes, we don't quite know. How much catastrophe God sends into the hearts of the rich, with this superfluity they demand through the eye of the needle in exchange for the essential—essential is only that which guarantees them profit, the camel's back of their reading bards. Reading must read us, as much as be read, by the rich, and vice versa. We grow with propaganda, but Christ with distinction; above all, because in God there is no Time, and his answers do not coincide with the questions of men; doubts, focusing on the question of rhythm: of moralizing, of evading the "public," and of "war on war," which is still a bellicose, quite relative motto. Vague and disembodied Christianity NO LONGER EXISTS; the primitive, rupestrian Christian has also become consumer, without poetry or meditation, in the Absolute Disjunction of all the Churches collecting tithes and vows and their dying international chant in the visions of Vatican magazines. ‘’Then it will be over (says Artaud, in Rodez) But they will not understand that the Truth will never again be revealed to some who hide it from themselves, zealously and strictly. They will definitely stop wanting to direct things and desire punish those who attack you, YOU ARE NOT THE MASTER, YOU DON'T KNOW THE FUNDAMENTAL!'' Right, Monsieur Artaud, Caritas, Charity, by Christian definition, is also an element of anarchy within itself, which betrays political interests. Standardized, a tiny life replaced by newspapers and parasitic efforts in a body of eaten host, satisfied with a camera in hand and the routine in the head, where everything that seems normal is unusual (being sometimes yes and sometimes no American, it is above all the counterflow of attentive eyes. Of people? No: of scenes from film sequences). The legend continues: this written subnormality that a prostitute literature, activated in the Nothingness of its invisible colors, converts into action. Phrases, of course you would say that in another language, full of slang and incomprehensible neologisms, a dialect full of salivation. On the poetic plane, the spiritual is organic, Jivan and Mukta, man possesses entities that he himself ignores, he resonates them in his sound, in his voice, in his flesh, as well as through the prolongation of contacts and eruptions of worlds within himself, decisive emotional throws of the ego in an infinite list of troubles and pricesin free verse, the old upaya of Artaud, which etceterated against every FOREIGN INSTALLATION, to seek its own OUTSIDE. “I myself hardened myself without eating over the body of the maximum intellectuality with a skin of sex and a coal plant...’’ Artaud administered to reality a lethal discipline against contact, an anti-humanism full of detournements and translations theorized in the abduction of words that exhorted the twisted world to the OPEN sky. "What to do with what happens? We already know the model of the Appropriating Event (Sabrina says, practical-political) and the full body without organs, which has been perfectly described since Toltec shamanism, as EGG, SELF-MONUMENT, and in Deleuze is produced as ANTI-PRODUCTION: 'He who witnesses his own ANTI-PRODUCTION, his engendering from himself.' It is upon him, there where he is, that the NUMEN is distributed, and that disjunctions are established, independent of all projection. "I, Antonin Artaud, I am my son, my father, my mother, and I."
– Marking modes, Sabrina? In my case, each new book is a new problem that relates to the old unsolved ones ------------------------------
ResponderExcluir--------------------------------completely. My operation through the gesture of deconstruction is not simply a "theory" or even a "method" of textual investigation, aspiring to be exercised in the practical-political space. The play with the limit that defines Derridean writing would not be comprehensible without the motif of the event, this ungraspable that diverts or persists in remainder. In this sense, if there is something to grasp, to retain, in the discourse of deconstruction, it would be precisely the ungraspable. It would be worth evoking Glas's imperative here: "[Ah!] you are ungraspable, [so let] the remainder remain."
ResponderExcluir
ResponderExcluir"The ungraspable is not a concept, it is a remainder, the index of a recent or imminent transformation. What remains of an object provokes writing, imposes upon it a law of sui generis sustenance. This is because it is not enough to decline the successive phenomenal attributes of a being or an event in the extension of a textual body. Nor is it sufficient to reactivate them through a conceptual accounting, in the naming of a content of truth. Responding to the law of the thing, to its happening never available as such, perhaps requires following the "calculation" of a mimesis without imitation, without repetition, and without meaning. A possible inheritance of what is initially an event, it only has a virtual future by surviving the signature and breaking with its supposedly responsible signatory.
The event as chance, as risk, appears in Derrida as a perfectly opaque, inappropriable background, which can only constitute a limit or an aporia for all responsible appropriation. It even seems to jeopardize the possibility of being responsible, since it represents not only that for which one is not responsible, but also that which one could in no way appropriate. A certain "inappropriability of what happens" engages a ought-to-be, properly speaking, the improper, according to a logic of ex-(a)ppropriation (BORRADORI). Clarifying this type of engagement—and its related logic—implies highlighting what is of the order of a suspension, of an imminent interruption. This is what Derrida calls the other: revolution, chaos----------------------
ResponderExcluir-------------------------------the new. The unstable, the unreliable, the "instability of the unreliable" consists in not consisting, in withdrawing from consistency and constancy, from presence, permanence or substance, from essence or existence, as well as from any concept of truth associated with them. An "impossible possibility to say": the event in philosophy and literature, according to Jacques Derrida, Osvaldo Fontes Filho –– Problems fixed by approximation, and good and fertile when they allow fragmentation, speed, contagion, finding continuity of solution in each little piece of the word itself, meditation, action, lines and points – he said, even as he reflected on something important, he knew that, when one master recognized another, their writings crossed over, and with Sabrina it was different.
ResponderExcluirI read Goethe, Schiller, Heine, Holderlin, and Rilke and took long walks. A companion of our rugged Western faith, Henri Bergson had once spoken of the three creaking axes, the inexplicable fault lines, in the intellectual continuum of materialism: between NOTHING and SOMETHING; between MATTER and LIFE; between LIFE and SPIRIT; the latter mired in the quantum information of modern physics. Is the Universe composed solely of energy and information—suspectedly in the form of wave patterns? Propagation in the quantum void that forms space? If it were otherwise (a coherent, dynamic, and hyper-informed universe), complex systems and organisms would never have arisen, and we would not be here (as Pascal asked) to wonder how this highly improbable development came to pass. Even NOTHING and SOMETHING capture the background cosmic hum that originates at the threshold of Time. Then NOTHING revealed itself to possess a certain ‘’anatomy’’ of an Open Work, inorganic and meditatively alive.
ResponderExcluir
ResponderExcluir‘’In the effort to create a sufficiently clear distinction between the security of any continuous filiation to a genesis, a genealogy or a genre, and the discontinuity of the entirely other, literature reveals itself to Derridean reading as the territory of all contaminations and all -----------------------------
------------------------------------indecisions. Its own power, asserts the author of Genesis and Genealogies..., consists in “[...] withdrawing or denying the power and the right to decide, to choose between reality and fiction, testimony and invention, concreteness and imagination, imagination of the event and the event of the imagination” (DERRIDA). Omnipotence-other, that is, the capacity for indistinction, literature incites the “non-generic and non-genealogical” apprehension of the other as what happens, as what happens.
ResponderExcluirLiterature attracts Derrida because of the evidence of its "precarious legal status," that is, its irreducibility to a specific intentionality inscribed within the social body. This, to a large extent, explains the unconditional right of "literarity" to say everything: "[...] the wildest of autonomies, disobedience itself," in all innocence (DERRIDA). Now, if literature innocently plays at perverting distinctions—which a deconstructive reading dedicated to de-repressing the choices made within dichotomous systems delights in—Derrida derives particular reflective benefit from the fact that Blanchot's narrative—especially L'instant de ma mort, analyzed exhaustively in Demeure—establishes an "undecidable limit" between fiction and testimony. This limit is a chance and a threat, the recourse to both testimony and literary fiction, to law and non-law, to truth and non-truth, to truthfulness and lies, to fidelity and perjury (DERRIDA).
ResponderExcluirThus, the philosopher's reading engages a reflection on literature's right to dispose of (and decide about) the "spectral virtualities" and, consequently, the lies, perjuries, and fragmentations of truth that may color all real and responsible testimony of events. This allows us to assess the argumentative value of a rebuttal of the presumed "irresponsibility" of fiction based on a "fair reference to truth." By its very nature, literature is structured so as to "[...] safeguard --------------------------
ResponderExcluir-----------------------------------to give in undecidable reserve that which it confesses, shows, manifests, exhibits, exposes to satiety” (DERRIDA). By reflecting on testimony no longer in relation to the concept of fiction, but from it, Derrida suggests an unsuspected, secret affiliation between literature and philosophy, a sharing of the “analogical temptation”—in which to sustain the affirmation and negation contained in a “being as.” By feeding the impossibility of deciding whether what happened happened in reality, “[...] if this in reality is still immanent to fiction, like a tremor of fictional overload, a supplementary effect of fiction” (DERRIDA), literature teaches philosophy to restore to words their power of speculation and imagination. It is important, therefore, to consider the argumentative effects of such a capacity.
ResponderExcluirAn “impossible possibility to say”: the event in philosophy and literature, according to Jacques Derrida, Osvaldo Fontes Filho
Responding to the law of the thing, to its happening, never available as such, perhaps requires following the "calculation" of a mimesis without imitation, without repetition, and without meaning. A possible inheritance of what is initially an event, it only has a virtual future by surviving the signature and breaking with its signatory, the supposed responsible party.
ResponderExcluirA "possibility impossible to say": the event in philosophy and literature, according to Jacques Derrida, Osvaldo Fontes Filho