massaging the message

to hear the annunciation, listen after pressing —–> angel

angelic lake placid

we miss the message embroiled in limited modes of messenging. in language we miss many things unsayable.

messengers carry the meaning. will they change the meaning. yes. be blamed for the meaning. yes.

what happens as we divest the messenger from his message?

–
“But who can endure the day of [the messenger's] coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.” (malachi 3:2)

the messenger is bringing Word, which is too much to bear bare. the messenger implies distance, difference, deferral, all dissassociative processes between event and its mirroring. messenger, from malachi, and the arabic for “he sent” describes one who delivers in judeo-christian myth; indeed, the book of malachi is the last before the new testament. paul notes that we speak, we believe. and first, before we testify, we receive. the messengers are angels. angelos is an envoy. do we enjoi these envoys, do we listen to our angels…

we want to hear the messenger. we want to attempt to discern the message. and be close to the vacuole of its airing.

must the messenger speak? in the story of the annunciation, an angel speaks the impossible. how do we encounter the bearer of insensible news. whom do we entrust with this mission, to tell. have our messengers sold their messages to a mercenary practice, where to tell is to sell. the love in the holy family is really represented in joseph. who takes mary in to have the impossible child. and stand by them to all. could we likewise trust our messengers; does contemporary culture treat our messengers already with doubt. that is, as coming with commercial sponsorship.

is it fair to think our messengers distinct from the messages they carry? a message is through them and their annunciation, presaging how their messages with them lay buried. how do you tell your messages? even if our telling is verbatim, verbum is circa meaning. our expression belies an inexactitude; how can we then not hold the messenger responsible for messages she brings and thus in a sense has hand in creating?

the responsibility due our messengers sheds light on their beauty. rilke follows freud down a path to think beauty related to our hidden spaces some how gently, tangentially revealed. he writes, “beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror we can just barely endure, and we admire it so because it calmly disdains to destroy us. Every angel is terrible.” (rilke, “die erste elegie” //duino elegies//) he is describing the murderous character of beauty, and our admiration of it. the beautiful as un-revelation ultimately uncovers ego–this is murder, destruction of ego–as the hoax we purport it not to be (instead, we draft it as a surfeit surety). a beauty in messenging affords the vague grasp of the terrifying, as challenging, overwhelming. that our stories must be passed to behold. is the challenge of the messenger the impossible nothingness of what is brought, disconnective foreboding? our angels tell us things we cannot hear with out mediation. and so this mediator, instantiation of my superfluity to my relationship to you who sended, directly questions/problematizes my assurity. my connection to thee appears more tenuous; we often interpret contingency as the emptying of an intentionality. our weakness to control in light/dark of the event. (but, of course, being does not have to be concerned with control. nor does self/ego. i am pointing in this way to dominant cultural constructions.) insurance is not the game of the angel. but we in the land of mocking assurances, weep at such insecurity.

why, i dont want to be afraid. but fear is a response to distance and void, the void pulls at us like the air above and outward from a cliff. when we think only to hear our messages through the lungs of robotic secretaries, the void becomes filled-with. when i drink deep into your eyes, the void nudges me softly as though before turning in to bed.

if we depart from the derridian slip, which accounts for our knowing in language…then we are vulnerable to such misunderstandings. the fear of losing the message is great. and so we take shelter in all manner of broken down buildings and read the writings on their walls even if left in but flaking paint.

–*ence, *ance and other groans
we have a tendency to blame the messenger. our language is an imperfect messenger. we can dissect it, kill it. in fright of its abeyance…a quicksand. like slippage. derrida expertly considers how, in language, we are irreducibly different and deferred from presence. maybe better stated, the insistence of presence as a metaphysical requirement of authenticity creates a violent kantian impossible demand (and unbreachable divide to the in-itself). but there are presences a part from linguistics. epistemology does impact our ontological expressions qua being, but it is not-all. we are multiplicities that irrupt in multiplicitous communities. language is a primary mode of arborescent understanding. but we do not have to stand a top to feel. and as i feel you, you are present with an otherness that exceeds these faulty tracings.

we do not trace only. let us create new maps whose scales are not focused simply on rote reproductions. in free hand, we free our mind/thought from the trick of limit and embrace our indeliable and always mis under stand able emptiness. as rilke notes, “abiding is nowhere.” we cannot place our belief, our love.

language chain gang

what is the message? if linguistic, de- and re- territorialized. mot d’ordre. but not all words are order. better, the mot d’ordre militarily is also a passcode. using words we can unlock the mysteries.

we look upon our words as some kind of gift wrap. a cover tantalizingly obscuring, hiding the presence/presents in side. but this is a seduction of dividing lines. where are these enemy lines? let them instead be past the unknown, in the darkness. let us not find so many enemies among us who step and attempt to step into the light. and speak

segmentation provides respite in the dusking. but what i give in words is knot divested from them. nowhere dense, the limit and set be same.

–beyond, flying through air
how is it that the messenger runs through the lines of flight?

lot is ushered out of town by his angels, who shout, “Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.” (Gen.19:15–17) to escape, a message sent by g-d.

lot’s wife, deprived of a name, turns into a pillar of salt, her eyes longing to return to the event of annunciation. it is difficult to hold clear the messages once the messenger ceases to sound. the panic of escape is this unknowing. the pregnant space to each moment so long forgotten, again realized. Deleuze and Guattari call this the line of flight.

the line of flight is itself implicative of multiplicity as it leads away from any demarcation of it. In Mille Plateaux g-d write, “Multiplicities are defined by the outside: by the abstract line, the line of flight or deterritorialization according to which they change in nature and connect with other multiplicities…There is a rupture in the rhizome whenever segmentary lines explode into a line of flight, but the line of flight is part of the rhizome. These lines always tie back to one another.” (9). the line of flight still has a logic–as they write, “according to which”…these lines are leading the movement, guiding the way. this is how praxis is ontological. the very activity instantiates the concept. messenging shares this movement. it is an emanation, and a passage. the entities involved are no more gateways than stopping points. the whole process swells and intensifies. our borders are a mask. emit and send this way, that way, all ways. movement is part of each emission. the movement/this messenger is always potentially rupturous (even as we misconfigure potential). let our message running and message reading not close themselves to lines of flight.

for example, we must open our consciousness to nonlinguistic messages.

in telepathy, who is the messenger? who turns the lights on, though they shine bright are we blinded by the shining so much to forget how the jigger they turn on in the first place. i say forget only because we never knew, can we? and in this state of perpetual loss–unknowing–might we overcome our preoccupation with an originary that entails a linguistical difference and deferral? where time and space flow with us not against us, as part of us–that is, radically subjective–not simply slipping past beneath us? it is like the conceptual difference of between and in-between. when d/g note that we are always in the middle, they describe not a demarcated center, but a borderless continuity.

messenging, inside is outside is inside

telepathically, we are affecting others sensibly unconnected. in quantum mechanics this is called entanglement.

we cannot be disentangled. until you shut lights off. please keep flashing your lights.

–angelic nature as innocence/honesty

the ways these angelic stories characterize a position of innocence

unstained,

is how escape can be unstained, innocent. angelic.

but also bare. and this relates to innocence.

when the message becomes a game we lose the innocence. and so our angels pervade an honesty that transcends the trick of differance

as we are well aware in our epoch of endemic cynicism, disrespect and disbelief spread when annunciation involves its own disavowal.

it is like capitalism. a system that makes capital subject treat object as value x when capital subject does not value object as x. promulgates a system of disavowed valuations…but that are harbored underground

this disavowal is when the bad feelings are felt but lay dormant, seeping out into expression. passive aggression.

Ubertowska writes “the strategy of erasing the individual dimension of a violent event…is to interpret it as a construct of disembodied distance.”  (book review of  //The Trauma Controversy//)

we dis embody internetly. we dis embody shielding our self from honesty. sacrificing our innocence for self defense. under-stand, after violent encounter, one’s self may feel need of defense. but can we help take down our fence work? to remember that we are not communing in disembodied distance as long as we are messenging.

–a messenger unmotivated by desire
angels are sexless creatures. they are unmotivated by desire. the desire that lurks within the pointing of the signifier.

can we envision an expression, annunciation, that is freed from desire, disinterested? is each messenger marked by a specificity of target for delivery. (this is to suggest that our targeting is the play of desire, and we will always in fact miss our mark as i am not precisely here nor there.) our angels are revered as beautiful and innocent, thus purified of the to-be-disappointed drive of the message sender and the murderous rapture of the message hearer.

in usamerica, angels have big eyes and wings. there’s is a duty of protecting. but may be our tradition of messaging can better confront our dirty god, our dirty bodies. the messenger, the angel must too climb through the mud and mold it to say,