dear sk, a lo mejor, soy otro

the radio programme recording is locatable if you knock here ——>sk

the widespread digitization of communication in usamerica ushers in a contintenal shift in relation to memory. memory becomes a modicum of evidence, consolidated into different file types and labelled for easy reference/recognition. with the almost concurrent memorization of the real at times sensibly hijacking the unfolding of the real itself, new questions arise concerning the nature of synchronic and diachronic times, that is, time as personal experience, and senses of epoch.

-what is (an) age-

our age is inundated by information and its process. the information age is one wherein truth seemingly becomes a means of verification in relation to clear and concise data. thus we create and maintain systems of obtaining, organizing, and above all, saving tangible quantities of thought and expression, i.e. data. we tend to forget the material aspects of data generation and the way in which this system of relations impacts the nature of the information iteslf created by such processes. think for a moment about the way a keypad tailors the input and output of thought and expression; we punch and poke away at plastic and glass and, through this physical mediation, carve theory and ideas out of electrical circuitry and mathematical interactions of code that are categorically distinct from their organic bed of origin. how our operating systems operate in systems of communication that are functionally invisible and are yet depended on to translate our thought to data. and our connection–digital, internetted, etc.–is expressed as a series of business agreements and through the machinery, language, and research&development of the war machine (techno-science rivals religion as the largest war profiteer in history). we obsessively press “contrl-save” to maintain our data–that is, our memory–even during its creation. this is to say that an event is really unfolding at a point in time and we culturally rush to symbolize this event as already passed. the passage/passing of the event, in this context, thus denudes the radical potential for event to rupture all modes of representation–as this passing is necessarily at least formally subject to a dominant mode of interpretion and even, to a certain extent, expression, that is always already a part of the motivation to save a moment now for later. in control-save culture, we are experiencing “now” in hand with an ideology that “now” will be intelligible later. and that’s the message of our era-epoch: we want control-save, control over and access to secure (that is, regimented) networks of memory. as digital memory increasingly transforms the spatiality of personal time, we witness a direct rise in the hysteria over our need to have control over our space. interestingly, another keypad command-couple, control-space, empties all format settings of its antecedent characters in line. our obsessive control over space is likewise obliterating our history berthed on human markings, memory. the feverish impulse to make memory a concrete object verily changes its ontological coordinates. we essentially move beyond memory as we lose a sense of reverence for its intimate and organic embeddedness not only in and to our individual characters/egos, but also–as nostalgia–as a unique and authentic mark of traditional, cultural, familial experience. an age of information in lieu of expression and data-space in place of memory and its echos signals the opening of our post-memory age.

-the post-memory age-
the post-memory age is precipitated as language divests itself of the concept of truth. contrary to Paul’s message in 2 Corinth 4.13, near to “I believed and so I spoke,” deleuze and guattari write in //mille plateaux// that “Language is made not to be believed but to be obeyed, and to compel obedience” (76). They continue, …”Language is not life; it gives life orders. Life does not speak; it listens and waits. Every order word…carries a little death sentence–a Judgment.” D& G are arguing that always already in language we have subjected ourselves to a transcendent ordering that better reflects movements of power than modes of creative expression, let alone any truly potentially radical lines of flight from domination and conformity. But we must then resist an imperialism of signifier/phallus! We cannot begin to do this in silence. can we knot concieve of poiesis as a line of flight?

D&G describe language as hearsay and thus critique it for its unverifiability, as it is a circle. but we can move beyond a vision of truth that is a mere determination of correctness, that is, of sensible similarity. our testimonies may be motivated by a “nonlinguistic point of departure”! language can never be a transparent medium, nor mark an exactitude to which we may return. this recalls the lines from Dante’s //Inferno// with which Eliot opens his modern melancholic “Love Song,” translated from the latin loosely as “it is because no one returns from these depths that I am able to respond to you honestly.” it is in a sense our very distance from verifiability in our language games that allows us to put ouf of sight the fear and doubt of belief and begin, to speak. i disagree with d&g’s socalled language impossibilities, particularly that language cannot be independent of pragmatics (//mp// 77-8). we must see language apart from pragmatics, else find our present moments and memories co-opted by a convenience culture that translates this effect of life’s effervescence and novelty into a system of signs only intelligible by the regime in power. already, we contract out our memory space to zeroes and ones. our memory is substantiated through digitalization of communication. just lose your memory disks and personal access to a contemporarily functional computer and you experience the requisite condition of digital access to human life in usamerican industrialized society. when the power goes off, then pragmatically our history too will go up in…cloud.

in this post-memory age, let me wager an interpretation. an event. a love-process. the love-process is flight, a flight that defies the orchestration and catalog of machinic assemblages, even the human ones. how do we resist the takeover? can thus resistance be a love?

are our symbols lines of flight, maneauvers of deterritorialization…such that we can cohere and play among idealization and its wreckage? well, unlike our lines of flight, our symbols are not boundless but in fact are only symbols as such as we impose boundary on their use. only as long as we read from difference looking for similarity. for example, to use a word symbolically is to imply a difference between meaning some thing concrete and synchronic as opposed to some thing more abstract and diachronic. it may be the indelible imposition of boundary to yield an intelligibility of symbols that induces an infinite symbolic transgression.

what is a symbol? it is infinitely re- and de-territorialized. unfortunately, this does not imply infinite transgression by itself. the flow of re-and de- territorilization can be set in motion, thereby enclosed by an ego-set, an exercise of control. we can see examples of this politically: there is a difference between the univocity of totalitarianism and communitarianism. capitalism has been very successful at mastering the co-optation of a formally radical concept (of re- and de-territorialization) to instead herald a world where use value loses ground and its variant expression is reduced to one measure (cash money, exchange value). In fact, the dollar is the precise sort of symbol whereby modes of re- and de-territorialization have actually helped its inertia as the solitary valid valuation of any multiplicity of commodity objects (including labor power, i.e. human life). it matters from whence this store of loss and swell of intensity arise–from on the ground, rather from upon high.

if it were only as easy as the annunciation of our symbols, which unfortunately gets us naught closer to deterritory as any sunday superchurch service, football game, lemonade sale. in reference to an ideological deterritory, deleuze describes the movement of paradox–as “developing the question in the problem of the work of art to be undertaken, while the very question undergoes a radical metamorphosis.” (//diff and rep// 196) why must our immanence be dominated? where are communities of immanence? may be these questions, why, where, have already changed to a matter of when.

“In addition to my numerous other acquaintances I have still one more intimate friend of my melancholy. In the midst of pleasure, in the midst of work, he beckons to me, calls me aside, even though I remain present bodily. My melancholy is the most faithful sweetheart I have had no wonder that I return the love! ” (SK, // either/or//)

-the age of melancholia-

creatures screaming to be free? worse, creatures learning to love being an internee. this is melancholy.

kierkegaard is a poet-philosopher of melancholy. i wonder if myth will support my argument that melancholy is related to memory; do they sit upon neighboring branches in ontological family tree? a cruel memory is a tightened fist (e.g. on ego, collective history) that amounts to a quite ubiquitous grip in our age of melancholia. and sk is cruel: he writes in a near figuration of his psychopathic relationship with Regine– “[By breaking off at the moment of unification] You transform something accidental into the absolute, and as such, into the object of your admiration” (“the rotation method” //either/or//). kierkegaard writes through its transformation the object becomes loveable, but he would more accurately note transformation as caused by one’s moment of control. it is the exercise of control that grants love, for sk. thus belied, his ego mania. and he may duly be defensive as his contemporary world empiric consciousness grew more ego-abasing. (though abasement is still reifying to ego; humiliation is not effacement.) he writes in //either/or//, “it requires much study to succeed in being arbitrary so as not to lose oneself in it.” this fear of loss that kierkegaards articulates is the guiding force behind our contemporary uber-ego; the world and our experience, even in relation to accident, becomes reducible always to ego. one exercises decision to BE ARBITRARY. listen to megamedia, and you hear daily, “this is the brand that individuals buy.” our melancholic age bears this psychopathic engorgement of the ego whose cruel grip on existence must ultimately lead to a depression from disappointment. in the dark belly of the ego-castle’s turret, we find grief.

in addition, we in our melancholic age are tethered to a perspective that we are distanced from our dream. but, i dont believe love to be “the substance of a dream”…

to set dream apart is either/or, —a concept which may, as kierkegaard argues find its moment of unpassable confrontation–but is also employed as a method of deferral by our dominating regime too afraid to embrace a logic of “and.” bring to mind hegel’s refutation of aristoelian logic, whereby a thing is always more than itself and not itself and therefore, it is impossible to equate and contradiction is part of the fabric of existence. and yet kierkegaard clings to such faulty logic, writing in //either/or//, “if he cant hold a picture in memory even when he is present, then he must always wish to be at a distance from beauty.” in a post-memory age we distance ourselves from the beautiful, we desire this distance which asserts a choke hold on the beautiful…it makes it dead from the living breath that escapes.

is distance a masochism?

may our relationship with the divine not fold to resignation, suffering, and guilt. why laud cruelty? even if self-inflicted, it is still a logic of abasement, abjection (depression anger turned inward). but our structures are saturated with calls to (symbolically) resign the things we love, to suffer ritual rededication to detachment, to nearly find faith more in guilt than in god. in //concluding unscientific postscript// sk writes about faith as “a process of dying away from the immediate.” this is like the psychoanalytic concept of analyst indifference (and there are many parallels between sk and lacanism, cf. marcus pound-“the positing of temporality”). the psychoanalytic term is not indifferent like apathy, but indifferent like constantly reasserting difference. how is suffering related to reassertion of difference? it is in what we lose: a faith of true otherness, an otherness that exceeds you and your reassertions. why is such suffering regaled? when i write of divinity not folding to guilt–i mean not necessarily like morality, as though you’ve done some thing wrong; more so, not folding to the guilt that we are unable to express the infinite in our finiteness. sk writes guilt as “incompatability or disrelationship,” which sounds like a call for revolution and grounds for divorce. we can embrace and push toward each other again, though we fail our efforts to relate.

when does forgiveness begin? not before fear ends. the fear that shelters itself in difference. Dr. king asks, “How Long?” demanding when will we reach the promised land. We reply in earnest, Not long, as long as we act in our lives today and each day toward, even past the brink of Dr. King’s dream. We do not have to wait for the next generation (the slaveholder and slave’s sons and daughters) to join hands.

we join hands in a faith in love. the life of the faithful is difficult. modes of ethicality provide easier relief qua expression through more understandable–that is to say, ideologically dominant-language and logic. but the theological* supercession of the ethical is most good. this is radically subjective in a way that no one else impells nor hears thy call to kneel. guignon explains, “for the knight of faith, life does not become meaningful through rational acceptance of a coherent system of ethical principles…rather, a passionate struggle to live in accord with the…irresolvable paradox that lies at the heart of human existence.” (guignon, intro to sk //fear and trembling//) how does one realize subjectivity of faith/truth but not relativism? we must nurture in us a hope, though absurd, that we can and do speak truly.

but when we live and love true to our hope, we initiate our infinite struggle: a subjectivity as choice.

–decepticons on choice

sk writes about the choice, that may turn out not to assist the so-chosen path, but at least an earnestness to give up a wrong path.

but how to winnow option-space to choose? we precipitate the either/or. else wrap ourselves in existential orgy.

can we be bodiless? i doubt such until the last breath.
and so, we be either/or:

for it is the body that wants to be touched, which can never be touched in side. it is the body that cannot be touched the way it can to be satisfied. for satisfaction lies on the in sides.

it lies–by promising a touch by you, other, can ever be adequate. to save it from the loneliness that is all to evident,,, in our dying. in our dying.

it lies in side of the body. the way we are satisfied is in side the body. if you stimulate my flesh it will respond, but not the same never the same way. part of response is then flowing with my feeling. part of feeling is my feeling.

let us not abracadabra the either/or out of existence, like kierkegaard’s aesthete. we must move through it——-

FOR LOVE, we must move through it—-

in love, we do not feel badly. bad feelings come from duty. the shit, the excess, the true doody, will challenge forever the duty, the shit we find ameliorated of excised of its more apparent stench. the stink is real though. still, just lies beneath its sur-face.


in side

i want to bring the poison/lie, serpentine insinuations, all up to the sur-face. to a head. to deal with fear of dying, but not of happiness.

for love grants happiness to those who welcome it. welkommen.

and if the shibboleth unlocks to you a hidden feeling. why fear the feeling? i fear this feeling when to my others the feeling’s bad. why does my happiness threaten an other? let us destroy all indoctrinations that leave us to be unhappy out of some sense of duty to treat happiness as a threat.

love is not a cell. love is a beach; an ocean of simulation and a shoreline of gentle and hard bits of life. as rimbaud writes in “le bateau ivre,” let us no longer swim beneath… “the killing stare of prison ships.”

-hew love

so back to a choice, an ego. an actor on a world-stage. well, how might choice abide love less ego? sans ego, cest possible? we may choose love wisely, which is humbly and uncertainly, for the peak of wisdom is when we know we know not.

love is giving without being asked, for a gift does not need sacrifice. we sacrifice to hurt our selves, to show our selves hurting. we are a culture more preoccupied with the way that men die, how they hurt, than the way that they live. and it is the hurt that might finally humble us to lay our selves open and in hope of divine intercedence. but a true gift of love does not require of you this hurting to make it good. love dispensed to the sick is no more needed than to the well. we are all wells and sicks despite our enfeebling categorizations, which imply such preposterous either/or to our nature of being (being qua being). to love is to give without notice of teleology, that is, the merit of offering purpose to sacrifice.

but how does one give without being asked? well, this complication might be related to our time-sense. constructions of living along a line of time. act as charted in causal arrays with other acts. the question, is it worth it?–which may be a vagrant interpretation of any main objections to giving without being asked–it is a question that relies on a concept of love that is constrained and contorted by time and judgment. as far as time, such an evaluation makes love contingent to a determination, thus later in time. the event of interaction is love less until a succeeding event. this too makes love a posteriori to human interaction; whereas, i am arguing for love’s inherent implication at the beginning of all interaction. if love is giving when asked to do so, then love also becomes subject to our judgment, a faculty resting firmly within the ego of consciousness. tautologically, love becomes a kantian rationality that impels the duty of our decision-making to be rational. in this meter, we have a duty to decide to love, through an appeal to reasons. but let us turn to a phoenix in the desert, wherein we find reason in the sun. immanence is a space of nonreview; this implies both temporal and judgmental collapse. immanently, we love without knowing why and how.

it is difficult to champion/champignon a purified love–hew love truly–in our culture of jealous rage. it is no wonder that every one is so upset as pervasively, law and duty are impersonating love.
love is mutuality. when my love is an other’s love, i am then happy with otherness. when my love is an other’s love only after time and judgment, i am then happy with ego and duty. yes, let us enjoi happiness but realize the greatest good is love. we are living in an epoch past memory and steeped in melancholia, where our happinesses are suspect. but from suspicion, may the love-process be allways scot free…

* and though sk callsit teleological–i have changed it to theological, as it is not in purpose but in ontology that differences are best expressed


About this entry