April 4, 2012
- [What a way to have lived out yesterday, April 4, 2012 with people who might have hated me
- and yet cared so much to listen]
- I owe a poetic inspiration to the Sea
- and to the annexing thought of Eman
- whose beautiful work of objectal ontology where humans or lovers cant seem to locate themselves in the swirl of things has surprisingly located me somewhere where the sea begins to ask: Am I a tourist?
- Here’s what came out of a solitary fishing by the bay at wordpress republic:
- “Schopenhauer fooled himself when he started believing in a cosmos that wills itself in a paradoxical loop that humans clone with their endless willing and desiring. But it is the cosmos that clones us…
- “We are the anomalies that the cosmos wishes to defeat by assembling the power of the universe to totalize us into an irremediable alien. But we are more than the sum of the parts. There is no human that the cosmos can totalize…
- “The human exists between an organism and a mind, a half-life, an untranscendable auto-function, a body-without-organs which can replicate itself outside of organic life…
- “Who says then that we are not aliens? Do not look far into the cosmos. The human is the incorporeal expressivity of what constitutes the cosmos in the first place. We are the aliens that the cosmos worries about. Without our power to become-alien, the cosmos would be reduced to its own autism. What could express this mischief of the alien better than the untimely revenge of Ptolemy!”
- The thing that dies is absence. The only thing. Presence does not because it lacks a condition of possibility of dying. It lacks matter and by matter I mean the possibility of entering a world and after some time leaving its premises. Presence lacks matter because as transparent nothing really enters it. Presence is pure thought and as such it is an orphan, homeless, and needy. This pure thought that has provoked the establishment of philanthropy! And the philanthropist—this other of pure thought is nothing but pure matter: everything enters it and yet it cannot enter itself…
- “It does not understand itself!”
- I owe an inspiration to Jason. This youth that’s starting to embrace the aleatory life of Nietzschean gayness sans the Lacanian blackmail of the unattainability of the phallus. Here’s what came out of that rare shot at an invincible machine called death (Jason was watching the Wrath of the Titans):
- “Death is the pure determinacy of absence. But even in a roll call absence is marked. That mark of absence is the trace of a once present, thus past. The past lives on so long as we mark absences. I wonder who can mark us in our absences. But perhaps there is a book, a novel, a collection of poetry, perhaps, an unrequited love which can mark our absences. Let us hope we live long enough to earn many marked absences.”
- The only absolutely correct truth that Levinas has spoken of is this
- —philosophy is an intersubjective intrigue whose resolution if at all is the impossible gesture of friendship. This is for Jason.
- There is no relationality in Lacan; his othering thingamajig thing, he the kingofjig, is a lip service to the vagina that he hated so much! He didn’t like to hear a vagina monologue. One should hear Eve Ensler’s exotic rant!
- There will be no rules once the phallus disappears into the colony of ants. There will no free sex as long as there is a phallus. Nietzsche thus pointed out the solution: To be free is to be a machinic anomaly! To be more than a human subject capable of enjoyment without jouissance! Indeed, an anomaly for Lacan.
- Take a look at the sexual life of insects. Insects enjoy sex without desire. There is a way to enjoy sex without desire. Without desire: the reduction of desire to the function of a machine, of efficiency and performativity, of capacity and expressivity, rather than to something imperceptible even to insects. This is for Ms. President.
- Another inspiration from Jason, the machinic-Lacanian. Here’s what came out: “It is even debatable if jouissance is phallic or if one would agree with the radical limit of Lacan’s view. If as he said there is no sexual relation then only the phallus remains in an extimate (the Lacanian contraction of exteriority and intimacy: whew!) relationship with enjoyment. But one can only recognize the phallus from a non-standpoint on account of the absolute lack of relationality…
- “But whose standpoint is the non-standpoint?”
- A new non-human alien standpoint can be attained outside of the paradoxical loop of the male subject, which for Lacan is the only subject, the subject who knows. Yet this will require not only the erasure of the symbolic tenacity of the phallus. It requires the reduction of the symbolic machine to an artificial auto-functionality of the subject. The Laruellean cloned subject, the uni-maton.
- Every thought counts, n’importe quoi.