respons-ability knocks

to listen to some neruda readings and a music project, click here —-> new lows

to hear about respons-ability, find the next underlined file with clickability —>responsability

memory's cruel countenance

do i bear the mark of yesterday’s choices today? yes and no. not allways, that’s for sure. moments and memories are part of you and not, i bring them with me and i don’t. i mean to say that living is anewal, impossible to grasp in closure. moments end and begin only as i signal them to. and at times i forget to “bring with me” this truth: that nothing is scripted until i create script. our scripts are prolific and convincing. but, watch as the scriptwriters strike and still the show must go on! sometimes i forget the nature of moments is that they are free. i mean to say also that memories are the way we end and begin moments. we frame them and place them in a spot to be a reminder. but at times, i forget to “bring with me’ this ecoutrement/ornamentation. at times, i sleep through all reminders. from the me who is my body, who acts and whom i cannot forget, my moments and memories lie separate.

i do mean lie. our memories are our reenactments of life like the echo rings after the bell ceases to toll. it is only a play on words, not seriously is memory a lie, but neither is it a truth as in correct. but, let us move passed correct. moments unfold in me. i can not under stand this like stand atop it and feel the concept beneath me fully. i breathe, so we call it. i think, i cry, so much, i talk and during all this others too unfold as “i”s as in subject as substance. and though we unfold in also telling stories, our words our burps our queefs our seizures our emergency (which is every moment) punctures can puncture the storious balloon of memory; we find choice is every moment, the mark is every memory. we choose our marks each moment anew.

–eschatalogy, to the future and beyond!
eschatology is significant as we–builders of empire and civilization–often lay claim to work for a future. thus, our understanding of the future–in other words, the “che vuoi” that guides what we are working for–is extremely related to how in fact we decide to work (and at least how we feel about working).

the brand of eschatology embraced by the church is off (cf.  //atheism and xianity//, bloch). this order endorses a “thou art” description of being instead of how bloch reads the bible to reveal that “to be” is “what i will be.” there is a mnemetic obsession (dealing with memory) of art–of thou, presence in a tense of static recognition. the continuity of are (art) is presumed, thereby initiating no incentive to rededicate at each moment’s anewal, to act. in art/are, i am my history; and its denuding of our call to act is akin to how memory relies on the epigraph of a tombstone. bloch instead describes eschatology as radical as-yet (sim malabou). not to see future as ____, and we fill in this blank, but to see future as open and thus break with anamnesis (remembering) which foretells/stalls futurity. “i am what i will be” imbues every moment…and we instantiate this will through a concept of choice. this “will be” is part of each act now. and it is a reveille. for rather than interpreting now as in necessary continuity with the past, and instead, realizing how now is only continuous with the future, we empower our will-as-moment, over our mythic and static will-as-memory. we awake to our act today as our future.

instead, the church tells us to wait. where waiting is diversion, a tactic of the regime. this is not to say churches cant organize social justice campaigns, but even in dr. king’s speech, he bellows, i have a dream… which begins with his children. why not effect the dream today?

like plato's rafaelite hand pointing to the heavens, wait

what regime stays us from a purified now, today? it is not just of church, but also of ego–the memory of will is diachronic. also called potential, as in i foresee my option-space as ____, and i fill in the blank–such will is unintelligible without a passage of time. but in the moment of act, the will-as-moment is blind.

–responsability,

responsibility has likewise to eschatology been put on the rack. i do not have my etymology dick handy, but responsibility is a communion, an ability to respond. i shy away from the word duty, as this lays too heavily in the works of kant. the kantian responsibility/duty is a responsibility of principle to be obeyed, with struggle of course, but our excessiveness beyond principle, call it objet petit a, is to the kantian an eternal frustration. objet petit a is the modicum of escape, the undoing of a place of space. and despair and frustration and disappointment in this indelible remainder is endemic. the transfiguration of remainder into this concept objet petit a, does present us with still an otherness we dare to name. but dare is the more fun choice in the game, truth and dare.

we can instead conceive responsibility  as respons-ability–as not grounded in the law, but in our desire to respond. call it desire (objet petit a) and you sidetrack melancholia. you can call it our desperation , our repressed anger , drive for getting back up on that horse… responsability is an expression of me, not slave, but free.

free to doubt? free to meet with disagreement, despair, no. and yes. allways yes as long as you struggle and choose to be free.

–choice cutlets

for the choice you have made, lead the life you have chosen.

– no i lead the life that i choose!
the chosen, is  a myth. as is causality. myths aren’t not real. but they are stories. for example, we have a tendency in our language to speak of so. so i did this, this happened so this…i speak as though i believe (if speaking is believing) in a relationship i in fact find dubious. acting with doubt is gambling. we wager with so. but also with every thing else. just because i speak in stories i might call fictional, doesn’t mean my telling them to you is not real. to live bound in by myth is self congratulatory. pastoral. nostalgic. reminiscent. fabilic. c. marshall sings, “how selfish of you, to believe in the meaning of all the bad dreams.” but who sees with such hindsight (which is myth-sight) to be ahead of the end of choosing again?

and the wheel keeps on turning

let us think choice instead as change; more moment than memory. particularly when thinking about an action/decision under taken by an individual. what is this phenomenon? lead the life i choose. what is choice? freedom. choice is meaningless without freedom. free will validates choice. this is like master-slave relationality; and socrates’ argument in //crito// as to why he must stay to accept his sentence rather than flee. plato’s socrates says but the state is a state only if its citizens obey it; should i leave my cell, then i, a citizen, have called into question the very being of the state. the state ceases to exist as it had before, with out awareness of its codependency. this is dialectic. we only have choice so long as our concept of will recognizes choice.

i am not free to choose to fly away on wings. and how else do we verily tolerate descriptions of will in the west with out reference to choice (qua individual atomistic praxis at the momentary point of departure in action). this is to say that –at least in the west– the concepts of freedom and choice are intertwined. intimately.  we might conceive of course of concepts, of no concepts, of will that does not have choice embedded. of instead thinking choice an ephemeral blip. freedom, choice, these are borne on the shoulders, on the soldiers of the individual! who cannot participate in even a wider shaming–like ancient western culture and scapegoating and glory etc etc–which condition a community ritual to deal with blame and dangerous choice. no, we as the individual is now alone in this wrongness. sorry, this responsibility. that is in a certain way, failure (as under memory of transcendent principle we fall short), and in an other way, a heathen of a human (with no organizing principles of transcendence once we realize the freedom of each moment). thus, our existence as meaningful wagers our choice. in choice, we express our selves as free. it is in this gamble whereby we move beyond mere shadow of a dream, and we acquire our unavoidable stain.

–guilt party

our guilt is our engagement with the world. we are already guilty. presence and meaning mark our surroundings. our surroundings and us. so why do we culturally harbor guilt as a bad thing? as soon as we engage we are guilty. recall w. heisenberg, who speaking on quantum mechanics and uncertainty, says when we observe the world is not the world in itself, but the world exposed to our method of our questioning (//physics and philo. //). we are involved in an unfolding burlesque with it all. yet culture teaches us to remain blameless, harmless. dis engaged. objective. sinless. we transfix purity into this blanched psychopath. one who acts by refusing to act.

aphrodite asks again

but remember the angel is purity, not as in terms of blameless, indifferent–the angel acts! she is a messenger! but the angel is innocent. the ego is dissolved. the phallus, the wound are absent. paradoxically, the angel acts and yet remains unstained by the drive. as mortal and thus drive besotted, abstaining from acting, acting, these both bring guilt. but i don’t mean to sound like who sk is mocking in //either/or//, who says, choose as you like any decision will mete you regret. i do not think guilt must needs bring regret! we may revel in guilt!

responsibility brings us guilt. the pure ontological guilt and impure epistemological guilt. that is, the ontological failure of our moments to match our memories, and the epistemological guilt as any duty unto principle always presumes our principle-corruption. we are always guilty under law, but we are also guilty in the sk sense: we fail from our ideals, we indelibly dream beyond our selves.

love, too is this leap into paradox and failure. love is unsure, as it is neither mine nor yours. these possessive markings of particularity are the figments of memory. a memory that changes yet often forgets to remember this changing nature. like rilke notes in an address to god–which is love–in the //book of hours//, “mine” is a momentary lapse into memory. instead, love is a moment, free, that we share inbetween. being in love, is all love, and in admitting that, i am guilty. and that means i live and struggle to be free, to choose anew in moment despite a pretty fixity in memory.

Advertisements

About this entry