swan song: the last wprk episode

in this finale, i hope for new emergences, which may resist being dubbed emergencies.

logos is a repetition
which highlights how paul and peter differ,
in their gospels.
peter didn’t believe mary*
but paul breaks word as different than peter’s keys, than john’s logos. word may be god, but im-possible, illimitable difference.

we are attached to our words.

yes, words are infinite but also spawn of us, of one; until we kill authorship. and whence done unto nihilism: of no thing in to no thing

some thing out of no thing is will. are we champions of it? nay, and our failure is the quake, the pull, reticent to return to no thing.
our attachment to our will is our break/brake with all unto all.

hear this audio,  finale (click), which aired june 17, 2012
in memoriam, of the last three years
boxing echoes ears
on air.
not the last on air.

but may be all aggravated air** is echo;
language a memory, life as moment

i’ve lost words. the character from whom they plucked at worth is snuffed. she’s dead. deejay discharge died. atrophied.

this digital pile of writings began tethered to a radio programme, before the summer and so much truly began, may 2009. i was in a lull, a trough. my philosophy was so private. i needed a conversation.

radio is not one intensionally. even the representational simulation of talk-radio is a performance made on stilts, the machine resolves some excessive thing in the tension of its moment. the studio is sheltered from the radio audience. but its waves echo outward. people are listening and resonating with the work. it is an artform–that is, deferred. plato calls art mimesis***–not so, but yes after ward. but radio can mimic a conversation.

three years is not so long. and it is. in human time-sense (as life span), the form of three years is a bundle of contradictions and confusions. a hurricane contained within the skin, not sure and not willing to seep out smoothly. my hurricane had no skin and so , uncontained, it tore up all the things every where. some themes in review,

we are all already guilty as law presages us as lawbreakers. may we attempt to figure our lives without law.
in love and lack,
“you are yourself, and yet not yourself, the ideal state for a meeting between lovers” says the ghost to the madman, bergman, //hour of the wolf//
the bergman quote is the love affair par excellence: a ghost to the mad. we may take ‘ideal’ not as in what one knows to want, but ideal as in perfect. the ontological precept. to love is already to imply we are lost/lacking. this is not a zizekian praise of darkness, an eternal meditation on the mistake we make in loving. instead, in love, we open our selves to our incompleteness, that even our most assured identities are laid bare as doubles; true and false. we are unlimitedly limiting. love is a like a criminality, always already guilty of want.

and so i suggest a direction: reinterpret our structures, ask the following questions:
– who am i? ego, is a relative concept. we are receptacles of schmearing consciousness;
– how do i know? let language in and out of your grasp of it. we find ourselves in grip of language even with out being able to speak it;
– who is other? holiness, the gulf inbetween and forged in leaping…the belief of reaching…to you, other.

we will experience failure, and so we need fore giveness. our words fail to match, depart, asymptote, produce, desist. grant me love beforehand, sans teleological strings. love is an open comportment toward otherness.

–narcissism , echo–
the one falls in love, transfixed by his image; the one falls in love, unable to express, just imperfectly mimic. their love story is a parable for consciousness. and we find passion in their interplay. theirs is the difference between memory and moment. neither are distinct entities, nor imperishable. we as observers–archivists and collectors, are also artists  in acts of creation; we change. history is now and so always changing. memory is required for experience to be known and take shape, but moment is also ongoing with out us and our understanding of it.

what do we know? no thing but mis-takes. but we too believe. we both believe and make believe in our words, our world of words. the way that we believe and trust any thing any one is a leap of faith. impossible to be substantiated enough in any language of transcendent objective sense.

–tech-NO and
-20th century objectivism-
we let the exteriorization become us, we idolise corpses, the precision of the map, we regale the barometer of normalcy. (i play instead to a danse macabre! awake!) the unique 20th century danger is industrial objectivity: we are become machines. food, work, family, identity, love, sex, wealth, wisdom, success…all bow to metrics of machinic proficiency.

but  “the mechanical illustration of human passion is too tiresome.” shostakovich, oncinema

another outcrop of objectivism, objet-ification. in an inundation of prescriptive signs, the womyn as other concretizes as Big Other. the language of liberation–hijacked as sheer ‘choice’–takes on the mantle of subjection. and so my critique that is lurking: choice is not ultimate value. certain choices are not good, made in mystification. what zizek blithley notes is in ideology, out of which we cannot step. my hopeful upshot: do you want to be slave? yes? fine.
do you want not to be? stop.

but we do encounter more and more mainstream difficulty with being able to stop participating.

-misbookings on the lines of flight-
the regimes’ cooptation of lines/modes of resistance becomes most effective once it uses the language of revolt.

-zombie apocalypse through screen infiltration-
the fastest metamorphosis in human relations abets our cultural obsession with dis-attachment and a nihilistic consumption that slips past our activity’s meaning to mean any thing. as baudrillard’s schema foretells, the internet is the desert of the real. an ongoing film project: about zombie takeover whereby the people turn into zombies through the touchscreen.

-radical film as sublime-
we analyse the cinematic relationship, our understanding and affect provoked through the projection unto screens. to upset a readymade sedating lockstep, we challenge our aesthetics of convenience and ease. to induce vertigo, falling from illusion that we are not authors of our fears. can film solicit the rupture of physicality, exercise, movement en body, to dis-rupt the scopic drive? bodies-untransfixed, learn in echoes.

-radio as schiz-
embracing the politic of this echoing. radio is a radical medium as we listen while doing other wise, picking rupture out from the air. echo as moment un pinned..

–lazy violence–
a violence that doesn’t strengthen the power of the batterer. this is the philosophical description of art-making.

–love praxis–
i embark soon on my formal inquiry into FREE LOVE, asking a series of questions, let refrain not impel repetition:
– who am I? of and in immanence, both a continuity and an interval, a frightfully slight duration. touch me and you’ll know.
– how do i know? language is a game of lie/truth, whereby we are disjoined from Whole into a hole. intention is thus phenomenologically in tension with what we can perceive unto inside and outsides.
– who is other? we must believe, in other as void and uncertain.

being is in network and we must work politically to thus en-act as free. agency is an accident and i is coimplicated in we.
may our acting/praxis abide our ontology: toward love, aufhebung, which we undertake to overcome in risk of our irrupting intensities.

i am aided by the work and language of delueze and guatarri on rhizome, moment and memory interliding and lacan’s analytic of otherness (objet petit a), and his therapeutic relation of transference.

“i don’t seek, i find.” -picasso
what we see we have found. but just because you find ‘it’ funny doesnt make this it ironic.

critiquing organic eating and the slow food movement, zizek writes, “It’s done to make you feel good. But the big question today is how to organise to act globally, at an immense international level, without regressing to some authoritarian rule.” yes, act globally. but do so in your life as it is materially affected as well: which is local. yes the cooptation of localism as a brand is funny. But this does not mean that action is only undertaken to make you feel good, unless at some grander nihilistic level–that all “will” as i conceive it is my determination and demarcation of it. to it, this will, i am the master in an s&m relationship. and not only to the will in this way but to the world. i am master of the world if when i found localism as funny, as worthless, then that’s all it is. i often read lacan to find the drive that makes of us its slaves. let us not forget who and how our slavery operates. it is our selves. we cant beat death but we can fight back against the merchants who forestall it (including certain consciousnesses).

time. what is time?
time to move.
some can’t move.
in thinking, we can move mountains in a world of words.

and so to quote an oft-displayed plastic sign:
he is risen…and it is finished.
..for now

* the gospel of mary 10:4-5
** marx, //the german ideology// a: “‘Spirit’ is cursed from the very beginning with being ‘burdened’ with matter, which appears here in the form of agitated layers of air, of sounds–in short, of language.” in //early political writings// edited and trans. o’malley, cambridge univ press, 129.
*** plato, //the republic// book X, 596e-599b (“We must not be surprised, then, if this [handicraft/painting] too is only a dim adumbration in comparison with reality.” 597a; “Then the mimetic art is far removed from truth, and this, it seems, is the reason why it can produce everything, because it touches or lays hold of only a small part of the object and that a phantom” 598b).


About this entry