[...] (self-possession is supposed a primordial property)
-the question is how let yourself be invested with alterity, without becoming a seed of transcendence? (San'an let himself but then fails in the second part) by ‘seed of transcendence’ I mean making a symbol that is of a symbol (the basis of power---state?) ---> is this how San'an's symbolism can be recruited by Iranian war lords?
San'an in the story is shamanistically de-subjectified (by becoming the pig, etc.) instead of becoming hyper-subjectified (game-animal) [something that Abu-Saeed Abu-Al-Kheir almost achieve it?] **a game-animal is for example when dogs go after a dear in the forest, the dear is in this case a game-animal. the San'an's pigsty is not that, he doesn't become wolf or dear or Jinn for that matter!

if I where Tarsaa I would ask San'an to become the Jinn instead of pig.

(Tarsaa is sighted by him initially on her balcony)
balcony's architectural register
San'an might have been fallen in love with the balcony, not the girl!
(we see proof of this later when he goes “down” on her)
“hu hu I found a torture device” says San'an when he sees the girl-balcony assemblage

Tarsaa's morphology--different in every aesthetic moment, a dynamic entity
[person of flesh, thing of illusio, category of mechanism,
ترسا or ترسنده =~ child-being, نصرانی =~ the-other]

Tarsaa is a defferent kind of mediatized body, not that of woman on the television, which produces a wasted body in front of the TV

what kind of hostility is she performing -or making available?

she doesn't accept his marriage proposal

is there a woman hidden under the concept of Tarsaa?
which toxicities or horrors the-woman-of-the-house in the story of San'an conceals precisely with the figure of Tarsaa?

*****Tarsaa doesn't have a father.
-she is autonomous and emancipated
-San'an is of course another legendary non-feminist position
-it's a masculinist story after all, in its plot

medieval narratives of woman's image relating to the so-called sexual self-respect---woman always representing the matter and the material
a comparative literary note on Tarsaa's framework and other female protagonist/antagonists -->
in: Nezami: Khosro-o-Shirin and Leili-o-Majnun (woman is there for the man, to elevate him); Jami: Salaman-o-Absal and Yusof-o-Zoleikha (woman is body and to be avoided); Gorgani: Vis-o-Ramin (woman is autonomous and for herself in the plot of the story)

*this time, he stammers in a situation articulated by her

preserving the ‘good object’
who is doing it and what is the good object for?
(the missing good object, forever)

Tarsaa demands him to drink and not to get drunk

سوی خوکان شتافت
San'an's pig-phobia
introducing the pig in a bird's story
(Hoopoe convincing the Nightingale, Nightingale convincing the ...)
the way of the pig

how earthly we are, we, creatures of earth, how metaphysics forecloses us
Attar keep throwing similies of horizontal and vertical
(simile صنعت تشبيه, شبيه صنع)


scanning through the scandalous moments in San'an...


I want to be German everyday



de-system or to desist, nondialectical negativity


‘Integrieren’ is transitive verb, has a virtual object or project


I am in Ausländerbehörde, the opposite of hospitality?
I have to stop talking opposite rhetoric. but this was not an antithesist opposite, it was a logical opposite


violences of the encounter


San'an's love-story, ist nicht das Tristan und Isolde


‘watch your back’ is the origin of surveillance {?}


I hope I am not interrupting here!


killing it and loving it completely
so we are working (fine-tuning) on phantom noises, parasite emissions, we have a sound-track here
we want to be aware of where we speak from, what kind of other sonic layers are somehow offering themselves, or coughing in (‘sorfe’ سرفه)
to point out the static, dormant, inert, ambient

...................................

and I like to hand myself over




how flowers make sense
(in Iranian metaphysics)


(---> go to Baudelaire's Fleurs du mal)



the rhetoric of desire in San'an, how is it (technologically{?}) determined?

how are things turned on or turned off in San'an? etc.
right at the moment that he is allegedly at an emission of a dream/call, we are dealing (or working) with (the essence of) technology, there is a mitten, trans-mitten, transmitting, emission, etc.
[he is welcoming a call---it was Heidegger who linked thinking with welcoming---to arrive] --- [to San'an, ‘what (the hell) was he thinking!!!?’ both in the sense of the ‘blame’ and the ontology -and epistemology of it]
(how is he revealed to experience the call of a more primal truth? the girl)
[if San'an was medium-reflective he would pose himself with the call/dream and never set foot out or act or take an ego-suicidal mission---but that is also a problem;

*footnote: Hafez trying to travel (to India, invited kindly with Reisef?rderung (travel grants) from Sultan Ghias al-din himself, singing شکرشکن شوند همه طوطیان هند زین قند پارسی که به بنگاله می‌رود, he is going to shake India and so on.) but returning by -and because of a language-turn, when he is standing in front of the stormed sea, he turns back to Shiraz via a trope: چه آسان می‌نمود اول غم دریا به بوی سود غلط کردم که این طوفان به صد گوهر نمی‌ارزد it is so interesting how scholars and other poets are trying to map out his itineraries and travel-logs from his poesies/poiesis. the nagging and complaining Hafez, always annoyed by weather or something, and can't stop saying how much he misses his friends in Shiraz and so on]

(Hafez takes on San'an because he also fucks up the travel, he falls with face down in the mud. for him also travel is traumatic, disruptive, and unpleasant; so they both demand another kind of trans-portation system)

This essence of technology, however, has nothing to do with technology. [this is Heideggerian] --> technology is a means of revealing the truth

[it is not the machines that we are at the age of technology]

technology is always sent to us
in the story we are shifting to ‘send’, this doesn't mean that there is a sovereign subject or some sort of powerful ‘self’ responsible or at the origin of the productive behavior (or accomplishment) of San'an.

(Heidegger collects:)
destiny, destination, schicken, Schicksal, etc.
[ungeschickt =? destinal failure, existential clumsiness]
[~= technical error in destiny. what is the future of error?]
•according to Heidegger, nobody (that also means everybody) can take at the wheel and make certain determinations and destinations
[this is his notion of ‘techne']
•Tarsaa's technical intervention in San'an's destiny

that is another kind of relatedness
you can no longer talk about the subject or object
is one in full possession of oneself? one doesn't belong to oneself or anybody else---that would be a post-Lacanian critique, which is the self-sabotage of the mystic is not necessarily attached to a inevitable devouring authority, “I don't belong to myself or anybody else.” nor God, nor teacher, etc. ==> the self is not necessarily devourable. [what are the certain components of the self of San'an that will remain unavailable, those that underlay a pervasive sense of not-belonging?---> longing (‘vermissen’) the girl/Tarsaa, ‘to-be-longing']
(why) am I including in my speech a rhetoric of faltering, self-sabotage, and hesitation?
should I edit it out? edit out the “I am not sure,” those self-canceling moments from my expression?
(my) thoughts deserve elegant expressions***


translation of this is very unstable


(according to Hölderlin)
we arrive at the truth / the moment that the truth or Das Wahre emerges / the moment it closing in on us, is when we have to say goodbye



(these are rather ‘stances,’ than ‘questions’)
how the poet-Attar serves or is served-up and devastated by language?
[...]