Return

Rene Magritte, "The Lovers" (1928)

Will. The question of the will is not whether to emphasize cycles or fluxes (identities or events, structures or processes, concepts and percepts or acts and effects); still less how to conduct a grand unifying synthesis of the two — events and processes as differing stages or aspects of what is ultimately some overly ideal dialectical Unity; the question is rather, first and foremost, to determine how we can possibly proceed (vis a vis the unconscious) given the radical discontinuity between the two accounts of thought and existence. A theory of the will (a diagnostics of the sick will and a genealogy of the healthy, that is to say the real analysis of the unconscious) must affirm the divergence of a purely ‘immanent’ theory of flows and a purely ‘ideal’ theory of machines. Yet the very difficulty in convincingly theorizing the will is precisely the fact that these two modes of interpretation beg one another and are ultimately cut from the same cloth; a successful account of the will cannot disguise the deadlocks which have hitherto almost completely blocked the progress of understanding the unconscious. (It was owing to the sterile dogmatism wherein both accounts decayed for centuries, each thinking itself “complete,” that their kinship and even mutual implication had been able to go so long unnoticed.)

Resemblances. The event has an excess over existence, as a surplus; must this intimate some radical intervention of Truth or more simply, an intangible and virtual dimension of immanence — that the event happens to return, perhaps without limit, breaking with the continuity of resemblances, linking up with a pre-individual and differential flux?

Ground. Becoming can also be understood as a terrible guest: a noisy, ill-mannered, and parasitic inhabitant of beings. Both noise and parasites (and bad manners for that matter) indicate pathways to grasping becoming — these transversal or transevental vectors each affirm a dangerous divergence from the smooth severity of the host or background. Becoming fractures (a) being into a prism: it is precisely the assemblages of parasitic flows of matter and of life which collectively constitute “becoming,” the eruption and eviction of Being; and yet, in another sense, the singular, material and sufficient cause of existence.

Degeneration. Growth (whether cosmic or vital) is never simply a question of similarity, it is not a matter of the general but rather precisely of the repeated: not of convergent series but “degenerate” planes and lines which expand only through a rigorous fragmentation, a limitless mechanism of tortuous recurrence. What is ontologically primary are these infested and “aware” surfaces, the resurgence of certain parasitic elements within the event, the systematic degeneration on the part of the surface of being, the positive knowledge of our incapability to maintain the stability of the surface against the rising ground.

This entry was written by Joseph Weissman and published on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 6:44 pm. It’s filed under becoming, difference, flow, recurence, structure, transversality, truth and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.

2 thoughts on “Return

  1. The picture is quite telling — a couple with bags over their heads, in an embrace — kissing, even… What do you “emphasize” when looking with respect to such a picture? People’s “unconscious” forces and structures sort of _project_ “faces” upon our associates — we never really see _them-as-they-are_, only _them-as-we-can-see_… You may see this, or you may see an alternate reality… I think you see what I’m getting at…

    Intention as Science, in other words… Our intention as the ideal/real aspect or attitude which defines our consciousness. Our “will” or intention — whether or not analyzed as “sick”/pathological or “healthy”/logical — can indeed, I agree, be thought of as part of a “machine”, or machinic assemblage… This assemblage is nothing other than our Cognitive Neuro-Arithmetics, as I like to say…

    And this “unconscious” of which you speak — this un-known of our persons — only known, as it were, by the effects on our conscious persons — why do you care so much for it? Are you simply struggling to understand what is inherently mysterious? Are you on a quest to be the conqueror of your own inner self? Maybe, instead, view this life as a “trip”, a ride that your destiny/unconscious is taking you on… Quite enjoyable, really…

    “Assemblages…_collectively constitute_ ‘becoming’…” I like this.. Becoming is quite a philosophically complex Notion, as Hegel would call it… Everything, atoms and void, melting in a continual newness that is the Present… I admire your focus on unceasing repetition, on unambiguous generation… It speaks of — an _obsession_ with the subjects — what a writer truly needs, in other words…

  2. yah wat he said…lol

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,867 other followers

%d bloggers like this: