Common wisdomS

When in A Singular Modernity: Essay on the Ontology of the Present (2002) Fredric Jameson says, “[t]hus Balzac was a writer of bestsellers and Hugo very much a popular poet: something that will no longer be possible for their followers” (158), I believe he means that there is a bunch of American, Joan-Baez-style bands, experimenting with folk tradition through the tunnels of droning guitar echoes and sticky, fuzzy drums, conversing in a syncopated suspension. I also assume that he implies that within such cultural scenes there is room for the likes of Sonic Youth and the Stooges.

When in Phenomenology of Spirit (1977) G.W.F. Hegel discusses laws and the moments of their being tested, he seems to be emphasizing an interregnum between the break through of knowledge into freedom and its getting in a positive relation with “substance or the real thing” (260). The climax of his meditation about the complex, interlaced multiangulation between and among consciousness, immediacy, substance, willing, knowing, individual, unreal commandment, knowledge, ought to, and formal universality seems to be the observation about these moments having been superseded. That one and a remark about the difference about the self-consciousness and essence being perfectly transparent (261) might signal a similar philosophical marvel, as does the conclusion about acknowledging the absoluteness of the right (262).

Between Hegel’s ruminations and what Jameson would have prognosticated, a shift in cultural consciousness occurred. What used to be known as traditional cultural categories amalgamated into newly formed hybrids. Or, so common wisdom has it. The uncommon one says that humanity just united under the green flag. Or, so the nihilo-cannibalist discourse of deception has it. 

A Way of Reading Poetry

I read a text that inspired me to think of its syntax to be as follows:

A finger thinks about the river that types a document on a laptop drunk by a plastic dinosaur starring as a prop in the theater scene within the movie dreamed by a rock.

I thought it would be an interesting way to read poetry, should it not resist it.

Thus, I wondered whether the following piece could be strongly misread in the abovesaid way:

 Ich kinda NO, yet not not rebjonak /

Thou art so too, or, thou thinks me thinks wrongly /

Ha? If the former, comrades vi njet /

If the latter, sorry is my middle name.

If I come across an interpretation of these lines in the key of neanderthal syntaxoid semantics suggested in the opening lines of this blog entry, I might  include it in the theory book that I am writing. It looks at various ways of the impact of theoretical consumption of prose and poetry alike.

Discourse Spreads

There was a time when scientific research both required and implied a methodology. Today, science seems to have been transformed into a signifier so broad that it includes investigations of metaphor. Thus, a study about secret lives of symbolic allegories of writing before it became speech as a self-consuming act reportedly must utilize a methodology. Such research may also, by extension, pretend to determine an ontology, thereby, tangentially, claiming an epistemology. Or vice versa.

It is a great relief to live in an age when collocations such as aethics of deselfed fellowship do not oblige one to limit one’s reasoning to disciplinary divides or to counterintuitive presumptions about incommensurable relationship between individuality and communality. Living in the world in which language sweeps the anxiety fueled by extralinguistic orthodoxy raises awareness of semantic subtleties, one of them being the false pair individualism and individuality. The other one being a slightly outdated, yet still relevant, distinction between dignity and pride.

That very linguistic sensitivity to discursive quirks is a piece of evidence of the bitter-sweet rivalry between tradition and newness. Traditionally, history is alive and well. Novel vocabularies, however, say that it lives on in the abovesaid science of metaphor. These two collide in the form of perpetual loops—alternating cycles in the lives of authors who write history and stories that tell tales about the lives of authors.

Such a discursive fluidity frees one from the burden of definition. To live in an era when even the word postmodern sounds ancient means not to have to consider seriously how obsolete the term posthuman is. Or not. That, too, seems to be beyond definable. Beyond a need to define. Because of extralinguistic unorthodoxy that makes living so much less complicated because of that. By contrast, back then, one could talk about enclaves of specific worldviews. Later, in retrospect, they were categorized in the key of the culture which diachronically analyzed the dynamics.

More precisely, what synchronically once was a coexistence of isolated stories about the world at one point in history was later understood as the moment when the whole world started telling stories in a specific language, different from how stories were told prior to that. The confusion was due to the neglect of the distinction between the universal language of the era and occasional occurrences of discursive experiments--because the retrospective study was told in the language that leaves no room for extralinguistic stories, no possibility for enclaves, no background to juxtapose them against. It is a language with a miraculous power to conquer the everyday. To conquer the mind. It is the language of reason.

What makes such discourse so specific is that its spatial limitlessness is a dialectical counterpart of its temporality. What’s even more stunning is that while one speaks it, there is no awareness of either. But, of course, that’s nothing but temporary blindness to spatio-temporality. And can be reconfigured, should the discursive community share a consensus on a need for such a turn. If so, it is sometimes necessary to reassert the relationship between language and the everyday. Sometimes, that necessitates readjusting the boundaries of the everyday in accord with the discursive territories. Sometimes, however, the everyday does not share the affinity for such tailoring. Simply, the everyday might just happen not to like it. 

Abutting Narratives Interjecting: Speech As A Self-Consuming Act

Like one’s granma used to utter: Anyone in need for style-crampin?

Damn you are noT!!!

No, no, not that…

We are noT robozombiesz!!!

Sure, not…

Olrajt!!!

Thanks. Like may ye orange glow of ye purple groove rule, for fuck’s sake!

Like fuck!!!

Thanks. Lemmie share a couple of quandaries, perplexities, and / or concerns:

Key words: Notion, Essence, essence, lotion, the form, ---ism, CON-sc-IO-u-sness, Reason, San & Ti, at once, war, motion, slow, flux, in-itself / object / for-itself, ciao, bella, hello, Dapoltri!!!

Now, before you start, lemmie ask you from which perspective do you utter these syntaxiod strings?

To that question to answer is impossible. For a simple reason, which is that whatever I say, the moment I finalize the statement, it, at once, becomes untrue.

How can you say that?

By virtue of having memory of it.

Memory is nothing but history.

So is the author . And the orator, innit?

The question just asked belongs in the era when people will have used those notions. As is evident from my key words list and my vocabulary by and large, they are not part of my conceptual apparatus. Nor are those that I just deployed in order to respond to the comment.

If so, your narrative prevails solely due to its basing itself on the assumption of the perpetual need of words-in-conflict.

Dare I say that consciousnesses, more than words, is what I see as ceaselessly confronting. That I imagine to be a solid foundation for the formation of a cultural force united against words of whatever valences.

If so, what is to be imagined outside the battlefield?

From the perspective of minds in conflict, that either does not matter or is to demonstrate itself once the perpetual struggle is over.

What are you confronting?

Essentially, anything that can possibly cross paths of my reasonably mindful consciousness.

Like this?

Or that, as long as it appears for-itself to my slowly transforming words in-itself …

But, does it matter?

Of course.

How can you claim that when you are still wrestling against the verbal content being shot from the source called my consciousness in the direction of your reason?

Because while I theorize, I make statements that are and are not valid.

That makes manifest a dual character of your theoretical apparatus: (1) It clearly shows instantaneity in its utmost, deceitful superficiality; (2) It most definitely contradicts the previous showing the power of the immediacy of self-consumption.

It proves the claims both wrong and / or right, all the while revealing the dialogue at its most dialogical.

Dapoltri.