|And to say what one cannot write, and only in language lost forever.
Why would Ouakuin's placement matter, if we're using Levinas, not Ouakuin? Granted that Jewish methodology is dialectic, but I don't see it functioning here, as there's a receptive; e.g., passive, mind, an empty vessel, toward which "it bursts out." The strange thing is that the teacher's mind is unfocused. What bursts forth is already agreed upon. When the vessel breaks, all receptive minds, which includes the teacher's, rise to the same level. (J)
an assertion about the Torah does not refer to the document written in ink on a scroll of
parchment, but to the Torah as a pre-existential being, which preceded everything else in
the world. This follows, for example from the Aggadah according to which the Torah was created
two thousand years before the Creation of the world." (G. Scholem, On the Kabbalah
and its Symbolism. New York, 1969.)
Of course timelessness doesnt respond to this assertion, nor does the Eternal, as the Hebrew compact is predicated on its people on being-in-time. But the clock circles what? The am is also I am-not. However, something is felt weighing on, enthralling my soul like a prayer shawl whose fringes dangle into a well of invisible ink.Thus, I am moved to write what I cannot say. (J)
|And as you know, there is no "am" in Hebrew - the tense is future in the will-be that is also the past, the biblical tense so to speak I believe it is the same in Assyrian, ilu [el] damku, god is gracious or favorable - so the copula simply isn't unless stating a tense hayiti gdol, I was big - in which it's really perhaps a statement of the quality of time, same w/ future - but in the present, ani gdol - I big etc. so that the biblical tense, which is found all over, somewhat eternalizes the copula; it's spread throughout time just as the existence of anything whatsoever qualifies space - the kernel knows nothing but clock-cycles and of course there's nothing, not even absence, between them am that I am; or, Before Abraham was I am. Am is the most misunderstood predicate in linguistic endeavor. (A)||There
is no knowledge of this am, no I that can be admitted before the Sun is directly
overhead. So I is in exile from am, an unbridgeable gapno
pons, no pontiff, no authority--between them. A twilight zone, a vacuum into which the
linux kernel is the archetype, the empty core filled with zeros and ones; e.g., am(s) and
I(s). A cup of raw code mixed with a saints pure ashes, chips of burnt bone, twigs
from a crows nest, and a steaming dollop of horse manure, cooks up to a hardy bowl
of alphabet soup. A text, that is, a book that sits on the table without a spoon in sight.
I've been looking at the quote and wonder if you have the Levinas itself? I'm not sure how this would translate - I think my friend Tom Zummer might have it in English or French. I want to see the context, the surround - how it conforms to Ouakuin's placement (of course I've found the book). One thinks simultaneously of dialog and dissemination in the quote - as well as the bursting of the vessels. (A)
Is there anything but code? One might argue that the universe is information "all the way down." I neither assume goodness nor evil; contamination is in the tissue of the beholder, impossible to eradicate. But Ho! Does the sword cut through exegesis or the moment of enlightenment? Bushido is not my cup of tea. The flower is exegesis; it holds its own. And information is both root and transmission, the root of the transmission and the transmission of the root. And both root and transmission are found in the root, and both root and transmission are found in the transmission. Even Levinas observes the protocols, not to mention Ouakuin. Speaking of his name, what's in it? (A)
Here is the text I sent out, which tends towards elaboration of the source, which tends to dissipate in the commentary. And I wonder if it wasn't dissipation from the very beginning, flux from flux; the big bang has always given us the authenticity of the origin, which we can name anything we want... - Alan Nanpotzuk'uei
filiations of inscription, what is taken down, formulated,
read as: the filiation son/grandson ends at this point;
read as emptiness, vacant, unoccupied
Read as, "Occult formlessness is no recitation." Flux as obscurity of the primordial, of the darkness, of the tropism pointing toward emergence, deferring the duplicate, whispering logic, bright murmurs that distinguish the learning of children.
Chanting is culture's receptacle, it's equivalence of the source of identity, doubtfully tending first son, grandson, (fact, origin) duplicates of joining flux to commencement, of which psychosis is liquidity, the into of coherency, approaching the spoken as black given to gloom, emptiness, reality, as form in a world of particulates seething, taken here as someone heard above, escaping from nothingness toward the obvious, problematic as our murky beginning as supernova read as appearance, from symbol to this noisy chaos, in ink an inking of lineage pointing toward origin, as if identity is catatonia, space, view, service to, bottom up materia, insightful articulation, as flux approaching approval, based not on whispers, but formulated, a sound expressing energy identical to image, intentionally entopic, from beginning to inscription.
Inscription of, or granted for, spontaneous aurality becomes expansive. Produced of, or disseminated for, dejecta as material is spoken and read within approval. Appearance is the equivalent of approval by a problematic voice with no foundation in teleology. This same gathering is where origin is read as temporality, the mysterious beginning empty of both assert and coherency.
Exhaustion tends to help a culture when kinship is heard as service to recitation, consenting to the darkness as if axiomatic, silencing minds which restructure the formlessness, the uncertain, the whispered, commencing built appearance as the practice of taking various symbols for the murmur of an empty origin, reading sense as reverse inscription, extolling escape into fractal impressions, or light as universal enunciation, an unoccupied mystery absent of beginning, already bright, the first ink emerges as black.
The appearance of a world is a sequence that withdraws its vision, its armature a read or heard construct duplicating as appearance. Codified within, everything occupies something, and language becomes the plasma of an obscured occupation. (J)
I've been reading Haun Saussy, "The Problem of a Chinese Aesthetic," and that took me, I think, to the middle of book vi, Chuang Tzu, where there are wildly varying translations of a passage I'm going to translate myself, Nan-po Tzu-k'uei asked, 'Where did you happen to hear this?'
'I heard it from the son of Aided-by-Ink, and Aided-by-Ink heard it from the grandson of Repeated-Recitation, and the grandson of Repeated-Recitation heard it from Seeing-Brightly, and Seeing-Brightly heard it from Whispered-Agreement, and Whispered-Agreement heard it from Waiting-for-Use, and Waiting-for-Use heard it from Exclaimed-Wonder, and Exclaimed-Wonder heard it from Dark-Obscurity heard it from
Participation-in-Mystery heard it from Copy-the-Source!'
I understand I think what CW is saying but I strongly disagree; people who are exiled - in the passive tense - suffer in ways we can't comprehend, through tropologies we can't begin to understand. The limits to my knowledge are my gateway to the world - (A)
Somehow, Copy-the-Source conflates with the perspective of the exile, as the Source which the West calls God suffers in perpetual exile from the world. You are right that we cannot comprehend this, but we must, as our planet is becoming one in which not only populations are being displaced; more importantly, their cultures are crumbing beneath Capitalism's "shock and awe" phalanx. "The bone between fingers" is a genre of cryptomimesis.
The most telling exiles have been the Jews. In his essay, "The Talmud and the Internet," Jonathan Rosen writes, "Jews died as a people of the body, of the land, of the Temple service of fire and blood, and then, in one of the greatest acts of translation in human history, they were reborn as the people of the book." What is this book but a plot to limit our knowledge? A temenos, between the covers. (J)
|Somewhere, Karl Kraus wrote, I believe, Am Ursprung gibts Plagiat. But I am sure this is incorrect, or not. I read it originally 'In the beginning,there is (already) plagiarism.' But then I think it read 'Am Ursprung gibts nichts Plagiat.' or even 'Am Ursprung nichts Plagiat.' And the words themselves may be wrong. But then I disagree that 'In the beginning there is nothing plagiarized.' or 'Am Ursprung gibts nicht Plagiat.' Or perhaps 'In the beginning nothing is plagiarized.' But I would argue indeed that 'In the beginning, there is plagiarism.' And that this plagiarism is all the way down, and such duplication and borrowing of authorship, authority, may constitute the very nature of reality itself. - Alan, wandering away from any conceivable origin. (A)||
Skakkeiis a term that comes from the art of rock gardening. It means "borrowed scenery," and pertains to when a--usually large--rock, is brought to the garden from somewhere else. Stonehenge is also borrowed scenery. The stones fit their new surroundings because of our aesthetic or cultural sensibilities. There is no claim of individual origination. However, in concert, an original aura is cast.Lascaux II is another kind of shakkei. Closed to the public, the original Lascaux retains its mystery. Lascaux II is not a replacement, but a reproduction, a duplicate. To the tourist, the duplicate looks the same; e.g., from pictures one has seen. But there are problems here. For example, is Lascaux II a duplicate of the original, or of photographs taken of the original? Is this plagiarism "all the way down?"
However, the main point I want to make is that the reproduction can only replace the original if the original is retired. Thus "plagiarism...constitute(s) the very nature of reality itself" because, short of extraordinary circumstances, reality is unavailable to us.(J)
First, plagiarism at the origin eliminates the origin, just as quantum parameters totally characterize electrons which are equivalent. There is no origin, just as digital media need not have an originary moment, but equivalent duplicates. This is why the digital is eternal, and Lascaux is not; the digital can be ultimately owned and transmitted by anyone. There is no there there, of course, only sequencing. The auratic is now within the interpretation of the sequencing, the semantic generation, the indexical - no longer the ikonic, to borrow from Peirce.
But you touch on an argument current on Cybermind - that of Baghdad; here, the shards and artifacts from the museums, archives, and libraries are NOT replaceable - not only because their information, their content, is in the very molecule - but also because, to humans, the antiquity and historyitself _means._ In fact, at least in relation to the Sumerian, it might be considered the generation of meaning.
This lost is, in both senses, ghastly... (A)
Kate Hayles writes that "As the vibrant new field of electronic textuality flexes its muscle, it is becoming overwhelmingly clear that we can no longer afford to ignore the material basis of literary production." (N. Katherine Hayles, Writing Machines. Cambridge, MA., 2002. p.19. ) Her stance seems ironic, an insistence on materiality within an immaterial nexus. A longing, maybe, for when she roamed the fields of northeastern Missouri, "wealthy in tadpoles." As a former sculptor, I'm sympathetic to what she's saying, even as my fingertips are pressing the computer's keys. But beyond the hardware, where the writing takes place there is "only sequencing." Digital writing is not a substitute for typewriting. It has no origination. It is the ghost in the machine, not of the machine.
The bombing of
Baghdad will loom large in the history of this century, smashing old mortar with advanced
technologies and the oldest of Biblical exhortations: "Smite thy enemy!" And
another collection of human cultural artifacts is exiled into the world, never to be
re-placed. However, like with the Chinese invasion of Tibet, what is a loss to one culture
is a form of iconic sowing. Invasions have been, and still are, part of the natural
process of cultural dissemination, in which monomaniacs perform as recombinational
agents. However, as digital artifacts aren't material, they don't need wars to broadcast
them. As the Digital Age matures, will the violent invasions of armies become obsolete?
However, as digital artifacts aren't material, they don't need wars to broadcast them. As the Digital Age matures, will the violent invasions of armies become obsolete? (J)
Seems to me that Hayles is much too late on this. We all knew this, literally, in grad school re: the material basis. Of course "only" 'sequencing' begs the question - that "only" conceals the niku - fleshmeat - of all of it.
Invasions - they're tempered I think by an exponential increase in energy which will push them right over the brink (for example in catastrophe theory, jumping surfaces). There's nothing natural about them, except that we do them, if that's natural? I can't imagine other species - yes, there are invasive flora/fauna, but not with the intent...Alan, exfoilating. (A)
This is why my computer is a white, slightly tan, color of flesh? Bacteria invade, as do viruses. But these aren't species. Many, if not most, humans are never more than one god away from psychosis. Believing that you are killing people and destroying their homes in order to save them is sane? Alan of Lille, in the fourth book of Contra paganos, wrote that "(Muhammad), inspired by the evil spirit, founded an abominable sect, one suitable for fleshly indulgences, not disagreeable to pleasures of the flesh; and therefore these carnal men, allured by his sect, and humiliated by the errors of various precepts, have died and continue to die miserably..." From what? Crusades. (J)
live, not invade. I associate invasion in our sense with intention; we read or project invasion
onto other species. Gibbon is much kinder to Islam, by the way, and less so to
Christianity. And somehow invasion brings to mind the parasitic, especially in relation to
virality. And the parasitic brings noise itself to the foreground, and its ability to
enhance. Do see Serres' The Parasite... (A)
"The parasite invents something new. It intercepts energy and pays for it with information....The parasite establishes an agreement that is unfair, at least in terms of previous accounting methods: it constructs a new balance sheet. It expresses a logic that was considered irrational until now, it expresses a new epistemology, another theory of equilibrium." (Michel Serres, Le Parasite. P.51.)
Levinas states that
"transmission contains a teaching," while parasitic theory infers that transmission
incurs a price, "a new balance sheet." The Master pays a price for transmitting
his teaching, and indeed becomes dependent upon the accomplishments of his disciples.
Truth propagates truth, and something more. Today, the very pollen that distributes life
makes my life miserable. (J)
Are Jews parasites? Are parasites beneath the aegis of Lyotard's
differend? These questions immediately come to mind. There are also issues of governance,
Bush absorbing or redirecting energy. Is it all a question of energy in this fashion? And
it depends where the teaching originates! - It may come from the channel itself, from the
transmitter, from the receiver; it's all interpretation. And it may come from interrupts,
which might be noisy, or chaotic, or patterned and determinative. The possibilities are
endless; they come down at times to practical experience, praxis - for example identifying
pollen in the while, or, in our case, new species of moths and bugs (hemiptera). (A)
Like a mantra whose words are meaningless, what is interpreted is always
only parasitic. The god ascends; but not before his voice has been inscribed. The
inscription cracks, crumbles, disappears; but not before the words have "burst
out toward others" Those who hear and believe the words are a god's are martyred
without mercy. And rightly so. What the god said was, I AM BECAUSE I AM NOT, immediately
and eternally severing the root of his words and his being. (J)
And it might be better when the disappearance actualizes, at least for the remnants of the planet. I am always inclined to the ehiyeh sheh ehiyeh, if I remember correctly - I am what I am, but also I will be what I will be, and ultimately, nothing more than the kernel, as for example, the linux kernel, meaningless without the cultural shell, but intense in terms of its potentivity. My work always seems to center around such, null moments or emissions, and a dread-full fear of any absolute, any authority. I keep on the trail of avoidance; I can't help it (A)
(A) = Alan Sondheim
(J) = Joel Weishaus