Nietzsche , Bergson , Derrida

That commanding something which the people call “spirit” wants to be master in and around its own house and wants to feel that it is master; it has the will from multiplicity to simplicity, a will that ties up, tames, and is domineering and truly masterful. Its needs and capacities are so far the same as those which physiologists posit for everything that lives, grows, and multiplies. The spirit’s power to appropriate the foreign stands revealed in its inclination to assimilate the new to the old, to simplify the manifold, and to overlook or repulse whatever is totally contradictory—just as it involuntarily emphasizes certain features and lines in what is foreign, in every piece of the “external world,” retouching and falsifying the whole to suit itself. Its intent in all this is to incorporate new “experiences,” to file new things in old files—growth, in a word—or, more precisely, the feeling of growth, the feeling of increased power.

( Nietzsche )

“…what I see and hear of the outer world is purely and simply a selection made by my senses to serve as a light to my conduct….My senses and my consciousness, therefore, give me no more than a practical simplification of reality. In the vision they furnish me of myself and things, the differences that are useless to man are obliterated, the resemblances that are useful to him are emphasized; ways are traced out for me in advance, along which my activity is to travel. These ways are the ways which all mankind has trod before me. Things have been classified with a view to the use I can derive from them. And it is this classification I perceive, far more clearly than the color and shape of things…. The individuality of things escapes us…. In short, we do not see the actual things themselves; in most cases we confine ourselves to reading the labels affixed to them…. The word…intervenes between it and ourselves….Not only external objects, but even our own mental states, are screened from us in their inmost, their personal aspects, in the original life they possess…. We catch only the impersonal aspect of our feelings, that aspect which speech has set down once for all because it is almost the same, in the same conditions, for all men. Thus, even in our own individual, individuality escapes our ken…. [W]e live in a zone midway between things and ourselves, externally to things, externally also toourselves.”   

(Bergson)

Ashes or cinders are obviously traces – in general, the first figure of the trace one thinks of is that of the step, along a path, the step that lives a footprint, a trace, or a vestige; but “cinder” renders better what I meant to say with the name of trace, namely, something that remains without remaining, which is neither present nor absent, which destroys itself, which is totally consumed, which is a remainder without remainder. That is, something which is not. To explain it in a consistent manner, one would have to undertake a meditation on Being, on “is,” on what “is” means, what “rest” means in the texts in which I distinguish “to remain” from “to be.” The cinder is not! The cinder is not: This means that it testifies without testifying. It testifies to the disappearance of the witness, if one can say that. It testifies to the disappearance of memory. When I keep a text for memory, what remains there is not cinders apparently. Cinders is the destruction of memory itself; it is an absolutely radical forgetting, not only forgetting in the sense of the philosophy of consciousness, or a psychology of consciousness; it is even forgetting in the economy of the unconscious by repression.

“There is no point in recalling here once again that deconstruction, if there is any, is not a critique, still less a theoretical or speculative operation methodically carried out by someone; rather , if there is any deconstruction, it takes place (which I have said too often, and yet once again in Psyche, to dare to repeat it again) as experience of the impossible.”

(Derrida)

Derrida and Tao : borderless fiction , infinite worlds , deconstruction , inexhaustible , listening , given

Philolaus , Derrida , I Ching

This is the state of affairs about nature and harmony. The essence of things is eternal; it is a unique and divine nature, the knowledge of which does not belong to man. Still it would not be possible that any of the things that are, and are known by us, should arrive to our knowledge, if this essence was not the internal foundation of the principles of which the world was founded, that is, of the limiting and unlimited elements. Now since these principles are not mutually similar, neither of similar nature, it would be impossible that the order of the world should have been formed by them, unless the harmony intervened . . .

—Philolaus, Fragment DK 44B 6a.

Pure pleasure and pure reality are ideal limits, which is as much as to say fictions. The one is as destructive and mortal as the other. Between the two the differant detour therefore forms the very actuality of the process, of the “psychic” process as a “living” process. Such an “actuality,” then, is never present or given. It “is” that which in the gift is never presently giving or given. There is — it gives, differance … The detour thereby “would be” the common, which is as much as to say the differant, root of the two principles, the root uprooted from itself, necessarily impure, and structurally given over to compromise, to the speculative transaction. The three terms — two principals plus or minus differance — are but one, the same divided, since the second (reality) principle and differance are only the “effects” of the modifiable pleasure principle.

But from whichever end one takes this structure with one-two-three terms, it is death. At the end, and this death is not opposable, does not differ, in the sense of opposition, from the two principles and their differance. It is inscribed, although non-inscribable, in the process of this structure — which we will call later stricture. If death is not opposable it is, already, life death.

… a structure of alteration without opposition. That which seems, then, to make the belonging — a belonging without interiority — of death to pleasure more continuous, more immanent, and more natural too …

(Derrida, “To Speculate — On ‘Freud’” , The Post Card 284-285)

When, in accord with this, movement follows the law of heaven, man is innocent and without guile. His mind is natural and true, unshadowed by reflection or ulterior designs. For wherever conscious purpose is to be seen, there the truth and innocence of nature have been lost. Nature that is not directed by the spirit is not true but degenerate nature. Starting out with the idea of the natural, the train of thought in part goes somewhat further and thus the hexagram includes also the idea of the unintentional or unexpected.

(I Ching , Hexagram 25)

Scriptures 2013 (Mathew , Lao Tzu , Psalm , Derrida , Genesis , I Ching , John , Jung/Thales) : let it be so now , all things return , joy , turns , let there be , water , laughing words , tongues , dwelling , grace , fruit with seed , agreement , water , living , repeating , renewed , light , source , movement , Jesus , passing , look

Jesus replied, ‘Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.’ (Mathew 3:15)

In the beginning was the Tao. All things issue from it; all things return to it. (Lao Tzu)

Let the rivers clap their hands, let the mountains sing together for joy. (Psalm 98:8)

of language to itself and to meaning, and so forth, it also tells of the need for figuration , for myth, for tropes, for twists and turns (Derrida)

And God said ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water. ‘ (Genesis 1:6)

Shock brings success. Shock comes – oh, oh! Laughing words – ha, ha! The shock terrifies for a hundred miles, And he does not let fall the sacrificial spoon and chalice. (I Ching)

the confusion of tongues, but also the state of confusion in which the architects find themselves with the structure interrupted, so that a certain confusion has already begun to affect the two meanings of the word ‘confusion.’ The signification of ‘confusion’ is confused, at least double. (Derrida)

the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. (Genesis 1:12)

in agreement with Thales of Miletus, who said water was the prime substance on which all life depended. (Jung)

And God said , ‘Let water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky. (Genesis 1:20)

 In harmony with the Tao, the sky is clear and spacious, the earth is solid and full , all creatures flourish together, content with the way they are, endlessly repeating themselves, endlessly renewed. (Lao Tzu)

And God said ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)

the heavy is the root of the light. The unmoved is the source of all movement. (Lao Tzu)

When he saw Jesus passing by, he said ,’Look, the lamb of God.’ (John 1:36)

Derrida and Dogen

“Multiplicity within language, or rather heterogeneity. One should specify that untranslatability is connected not only with the difficult passage, the aporia or impasse which would isolate one poetic language from another. Babel is also the possible impossible step, beyond hope of transaction, tied to the multiplicity of languages within the uniqueness of the poetic inscription: several times in one, several languages in a single poetic act.” (Derrida)

“The time-being is like this. Arriving is overwhelmed by arriving, but not by not-arriving. Not-arriving is overwhelmed by not-arriving, but not by arriving. Mind overwhelms mind and sees mind, words overwhelm words and see words. Overwhelming overwhelms overwhelming and sees overwhelming. Overwhelming is nothing but overwhelming. This is time. As overwhelming is caused by you, there is no overwhelming that is separate from you. Thus you go out and meet someone. Someone meets someone. You meet yourself. Going out meets going out. If these are not the actualization of time, they cannot be thus.”  (Dogen)

Derrida : “multiplicity and migration of languages … it can only take on meaning in relation to place … bend language to what exceeds it”

https://markforshee1.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/derrida-and-celan-4/

 “Multiplicity and migration of languages, certainly, and within language itself, Babel within a single language … multiplicity within language, insignificant difference as the condition of meaning. But by the same token, the insignificance of language, of the properly linguistic body : it can only take on meaning in relation to a place. By place, I mean just as much the relation to a border, country, house, or threshold, as any site, any situation in general from within which, practically, pragmatically, alliances are formed, contracts, codes and conventions established which give meaning to the insignificant , institute passwords, bend language to what exceeds it, make of it a moment of gesture and of step, secondarize or ‘reject’ it in order to find it again.”

THE DIAMOND SUTRA

” … such men will not fall back to cherishing the idea of an ego entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. they will neither fall back to cherishing the idea of things as having intrinsic qualities, nor even of things as devoid of intrinsic qualities.”

“Wherefore? Because if such men allowed their minds to grasp and hold on to anything they would be cherishing the idea of an ego entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality; and if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as having intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. Likewise, if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as devoid of intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. So you should not be attached to things as being possessed of, or devoid of, intrinsic qualities. this is the reason why the Tathagata always teaches this saying: My teaching of the good law (dharma) is to be likened unto a raft. The buddha teaching must be relinquished; how much more so mis-teaching!” (The Diamond Sutra, 22)

Hegel , Heidegger, Freud , Lacan , Benjamin : Language , Being, Torture , Poetry , Mythic/Divine

Throughout his own work, Lacan, in turn, modifies Heidegger’s motif of language as the house of being. Language is not man’s creation and instrument, it is man who “dwells” in language: “psychoanalysis should be the science of language inhabited by the subject.”⁵Lacan’s “paranoiac” twist, his additional Freudian turn of the screw, comes from his characterization of this house as a torture-house: “in the light of the Freudian experience, man is a subject caught in and tortured by language.”⁶ Not only does man dwell in the “prison-house of language,” (the title of Fredric Jameson’s early book on structuralism), he dwells in a torture-house of language. The entire psychopathology deployed by Freud, from conversion-symptoms inscribed into the body, up to total psychotic breakdowns, are scars of this permanent torture, so many signs of an original and irremediable gap between subject and language, so many signs that man cannot ever be at home in his own home … in order to get the truth to speak, it is not enough to suspend the subject’s active intervention and let language itself speak—as Elfriede Jelinek put it with extraordinary clarity: “language should be tortured to tell the truth.” It should be twisted, denaturalized, extended, condensed, cut and reunited, made to work against itself. Language as the “big Other” is not an agent of wisdom to whose message we should attune ourselves, but a place of cruel indifference and stupidity. The most elementary form of torturing one’s language is called poetry—imagine what a complex form like the sonnet does to language: it forces the free flow of speech into a Procrustean bed of a fixed shape of rhythm and rhyme. So what about Heidegger’s procedure of listening to the soundless word of language itself, of bringing out the truth that already dwells in it? No wonder late Heidegger’s thinking is poetic.

( Zizek )

Of course, the only way for us to articulate this truth is within language—by way of torturing language. As Hegel already knew, when we think, we think in language against language. This brings us to Benjamin: Could we not apply his distinction of mythic violence and divine violence to the two modes of violence we were dealing with? The violence of language to which Heidegger refers is “mythic violence”: it is a sprach-bildende Gewalt, a language-forming violence, to paraphrase Benjamin’s definition of mythic violence asstaats-bildend—the force of mythos as the primordial act of narrativization or symbolization. In Badiou’s terms, the violent imposition of the transcendental coordinates of a World onto the multiplicity of Being. The violence of thinking (and of poetry, if we understand it differently from Heidegger) is, on the contrary, the case of what Benjamin calls “divine violence,” it is a language-destroying (sprach-zerstoerend) twisting of language in order to enable a trans-symbolic real of a Truth to transpire in it.

( Zizek )

DERRIDA : (TRACE/CINDER – “REMAINS WITHOUT REMAINING … NEITHER PRESENT NOR ABSENT … DESTROYS ITSELF … TOTALLY CONSUMED … MEDITATION ON BEING … TESTIFIES TO THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MEMORY …RADICAL FORGETTING … ABSOLUTE NON-MEMORY … THIS EXPERIENCE OF INCINERATION WHICH IS EXPERIENCE ITSELF … EFFACES WHAT IT INSCRIBES”)

Ashes or cinders are obviously traces – in general, the first figure of the trace one thinks of is that of the step, along a path, the step that lives a footprint, a trace, or a vestige; but “cinder” renders better what I meant to say with the name of trace, namely, something that remains without remaining, which is neither present nor absent, which destroys itself, which is totally consumed, which is a remainder without remainder. That is, something which is not. To explain it in a consistent manner, one would have to undertake a meditation on Being, on “is,” on what “is” means, what “rest” means in the texts in which I distinguish “to remain” from “to be.” The cinder is not! The cinder is not: This means that it testifies without testifying. It testifies to the disappearance of the witness, if one can say that. It testifies to the disappearance of memory. When I keep a text for memory, what remains there is not cinders apparently. Cinders is the destruction of memory itself; it is an absolutely radical forgetting, not only forgetting in the sense of the philosophy of consciousness, or a psychology of consciousness; it is even forgetting in the economy of the unconscious by repression.

Cinders, however, is an absolute non-memory, so to speak. Thus, it communicates with that which in the gift, for example, does not even seek to get recognized or kin every experience there is this incineration, this experience of incineration which is experience itself. Naturally, then, there are great, spectacular experiences of incineration – and I allude to them in the text – I’m thinking of the crematoria, of all the destruction by fire, but before even these great memorable experience of incineration, there is incineration as experience, as the elementary form of experience. In the text on Celan (“Shibboleth”), I evoke certain poems by Celan on ashes or cinders, on the disappearance not only of the cherished one, but of his or her name – when “mourning” is not even possible. This is the absolute destruction of testimony and, in this regard, the word “cinder” says very well – provided, of course, that one also makes it say this in a text that writes the cinder, that writes on cinders, that writes in cinders – cinder says very well that which in the trace in general, in writing in general, effaces what it inscribes. The effacement is not only the contrary of inscription. One writes with cinders on cinders.

# 34 — Eternal Return (2)

i suppose we might call this one “eternal return 2” , havent “decided” yet , as we spiritually deconstructs such notions , all along the way, well the way is paved , of course, with the lyric and the music, and all of the commentary we are recording/repeating for the brain/psyche metaphysical spiral drop , which is to say, in the process, which is what this is all “about” , “anyway” , ironically enough i listen now to the “edited” version of miles’ in a silent way recording , i found some majic at 1:15 on the complete sessions recordings/release, very magical, haunting, wound up juxtaposing it with part of a sublime  beethoven string quartet piece, a something (op. 132) occcurring on the fabic as one might say , the sacred and mystical continues, what is , as one and the continued other, is is called for is the archive, the records, kept at junctions such as these ,

well ive made a point of not plauying the editing game in this blog project , and so i wont start now, the reternal return title just came to me , as a contiual now something  i may have to do and impose and impress , perhaps impregante , that i may add the number to tit as it does qualify as one of my commentaries in thsi blog processof quotations from “others” , occassionally i chime in , in this most recent case it was the matter of archiving the recording taking place inanother , hitherto magrinalixzed franework, as in my ears and in car steroe s by civitieus of radnor lake and parking lot frequecncie , movingin ttime, i say all that ust to say we may hv to eave the last list as it is without strictly understanding it as a proper demarcation , how to cracve this project ?

well. we see that the first 30 re3cordong were not docmented , except rhey were , in previous blogs and yes ive reread them , we do rered what we write , so there aer periosds in thwese spaces that now should be more proaperly accounted for , for eternity etc,

we’ll get it “covered” , spewcifically, for example, there was an emphasis on richard strauss that might be misunderstood, in that we are now retiruning to a/the eternal return (2) for in that we sort of “bagan” with beethoven’s and mahler’s ninth in the “first collection” , strauss comers with and later , the point is that we have a series of the symphonies from both beethoven and mahler in the recorded part that dsont include their ninth symphonies, but “now” we have reintroduced those , along with moxart’s requiem which experienced the sqame/saimilar faTE , IN THE PROCESS OF THE RECORDING DEVISE AND THE SPEAKERSW AND THE “OLD TESTMENT” OF THE LIBRARY LOANED CDS AND THEN THE LATER/NOW REALITY OF THE internet freedom, radical freedom, wjich changes our refcording style of course, … dorry for the accidentlal caps punch

msaybwe the point is there will be titles and numbers and perhaps some , justr a few, commentsry “subtitles” , and yes some of the older and new ones (?) may./will be employed ina type of chanting, mantra of the fragment ,

so call this eternal return (2) i guess

but also, and in lines witht he anthems eternally corrrponding , there is the idea that we can now return to zarathurstras speach “on the metamorphoses of the spirit” with renrewd vigot some might say and we’ll add that it with ever new understsanding , additojnla texts , cvoices, operas of the psychic , which now allow ius to proprlerly reurn , eternally to be sure, to this all important text , always know, knowne eternally , menaning since qadolescence , and now at the numnerbless ages we can reinscribe and sing with new tones, , “sing us a new song” for the artist of david andf as the one residingin turino these words are also “eternal return” …

and so ………