[...]terrupting 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?



blast has a sense of destruction to it, and destruction is good and necessary, it clears away what is already dead and hanging around burdening your being. blast is not a devastation, devastation promises no futurity

-who are you destroyed by?

whom am I addressing here? but more importantly, who or what is addressing me here (in a non-present way)?

San'an/girl/pig assemblage
(what is girl in San'an story? what is animal in San'an story?)

San'an story, as a scenography of sexual difference, and ironization (to make ironic in appearance or effect) of question and answer, Q&As in Attar

there is a dramaturgy of repudiation (when the students ask and blame---everyone is insulted) --> Student is whom that which defines what is *failure* (--'to be fixed’ =? origin of teaching)
{pupil is that which ‘summons’ the master - استاد احضار}

ملامت

...and an idealization of the self, and not the object
[where is the object in San'an poem? where is the shadow, the dead?]


basically here, I am opening a Derridean expanse


...full path of an another Dasein


how far we are from the Dionysian Athenian festival? Lenaia, a dramatic/comic competition of theatrical plays; coming from those of aristocrats and wine-mixing rituals, also where Aristophanes was testing ground and staging and test-audiencing his first texts and performances. and his “The Frogs” won the first prize actually. it is a divine comedy, Dionysus and Heracles etc. and it has a choral interlude sung by the eponymous chorus of frogs, a frog greatest-hits. (on his trip to Rome, is San'an going to encounter other texts?)

the concept of ملامتگر (Malamatgar) or the one who reproaches is both central and peripheral in the story of Sheikh San'an. the story shows the crucial transformation of the students of the sheikh from ‘followers’ to ملامتگر. the stake are high at students’ behavior and not San'an's. the story tells that when your love falls in love with another person--that person, being a pagan gorgeous girl, a pig, or another idol--you must also fall in as well. it is important to understand whose perspective here is blamed for whose expectations. students’ project is expectation (of Sheikh)--is the pillar in the narrative. the failure to change and ability to experience that other perspective, and in this case the perspective of your significant-other's lover, results into the inception of ملامتگر and that is definitional for the formation of ملامتگر: someone who refuses to exercise another selfhood.

(This is also the central theme of the story of Moses and Khidr, in which Moses as follower/student becomes the Malaamatgar thing. This attitude of Khidr or San'an is provoking their audience to go beyond any version of fixation ---Attar's idea of unfixity of discipleship's authenticity is kind of messed up)
how San'an is over or not over the material and his boner direction or erection is towards which psychoanalytically accessible phallus?

His students are following him backward!?
“Authentic disciple of four hundred men, were regressed (zurückschreiten) on a journey with him.” [why Attar is insisting on the authenticity of the disciple and apprenticeship?]


we should always ask where this text comes from.


I try not to pre-program what is going to happen. [here now]


--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9SIL38hkgw
in the Shams Group music video, the soldiers in the video are having the little-Rumi-packet in their backpacks, along with other suicides. (other soldiers having Holderlin or Nietzsche in their backpacks)



metaphysical strongholds


to keep partnership with the self, so that there can be interlocution
(is this a possible ethics? --> “can [...]