THE FORCE OF THINGS

*WARNING* MIXED METAPHORS:

I applaud each of you who have already developed the flexibility of mind to perform the routine of mental gymnastics required by the readings.  I’m still stretching and developing my tumbling skills.  I’ve never had much rhythm or grace so I question my ability to perform in any fashion other than a poorly handled marionette always tangled in the strings of discourse.  So, if and when I seem to completely miss the mark, please gently help me untangle my strings.

THE FORCE OF THINGS

“The absolute is that which is loosened off and on the loose.  When, for example, a Catholic priest performs the act of ab-solution, he is the vehicle of a divine agency that loosens sins from their attachment to a particular soul: sins now stand apart, displaced foreigners living a strange, impersonal life of their own.  When de Vries speaks of the absolute, he thus tries to point to what no speaker could possibly see, that is, a some-thing that is not an object of knowledge, that is detached or radically free from representation, and thus no-thing at all.  Nothing but the force or effectivity of the detachment, that is.” (3)

When I write about my work I speak of creating moments cradled within a space.  What is that? Could it be the absolution of ‘my’ art from me where it becomes no-thing that can’t be defined but still has a force that others can encounter? Am I purposefully using my creation process to absolve myself of the paranoia and anxiety processing it into something I finally understand and thus no longer having to carry it.  And it becomes a no-thing whose power continues as ‘what no speaker could possibly see, that is something that is not an object of knowledge.”

 

Also, as I’m very interested in identity (what it means, how it’s defined, how it is created, and how flexible is it) I was drawn to the term ‘nonidentity’ “that which is not subject to knowledge but is instead heterogenous to all concepts.” “The feeling that something’s being forgotten or left out” (Adorno) “This discomforting sense of inadequacy of representation remains no matter now refined or analytically precise one’s concepts become.” I look at his use of the word ‘representation’ as “identity” and I’ll never define it satisfactorily – but I’ll still try.  It also drove me to alternately try to understand nonidentity and vitality of materialism.  I’m trying.  I had a thought while reading ‘Thing-Power IV: Walking Talking Minerals” that made me laugh out loud.

“If one adopts the perspective of evolutionary rather than biographical time, for example, a mineral efficacy becomes visible…” (11) This and De Landa’s and Vernadsky’s ideas of humans being a ‘product’ or ‘potent mix of minerals’ combined with the LDS belief that God is not only human but that we can become gods, suggests that ultimately “mineralization created God”.

Leave a Reply

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s