[...]he universiy values it and seals it
-what deals does it seal?
-the commitment to breaking up the book and its
-linguistic pollutants
-dirty talks
(what would this structure mean? and how is that expandable?)
(accourding to Egyptian 1550 BCE,) book
-are lists the origin of writing? (...way before the installation of the modern scriptural apparatus)
theory-minded academics have rigorously repudiated
cohabitation of two sovereign linguistic attitudes
18th century
rise of increasingly more mathematical and symbolic logics
more literary types of discursive formations,
Wordsworth, Rilke, and Keats disavowing Paul
Freud without Goethe or Schiller?!
Benjamin off Baudelaire?!
Derrida deprived of Mallarme, Ponge, or Celan?!
Heidegger abandoned by Trakl or Holderlin?!
increasing technicization of critical language
colloquy, soliloquy
they are called to witness distinct regions of being
% denken und dichten is at stake in the
(regarding my footnote fetish) ... because writing such footnotes implies
philosophy
to turn the
can we reappropriate without reanimate?
-how to train yourself in spotting relevant questions and unilaterally
(to put the ‘question’ at risk)
1. no reference to the ground
2. never separating from milieu
(Virgin Mary requires a milieu
what is the milieu of ajayeb? (ghalamrov
“natural”
“nature”
Earth
Surrealists’ automatism to cultivate lucid trances is missing the techniques of imagination developed by Ibn
(Breton's subjectivity is still hopelessly European)
‘ideas’
(Plato knew this)
to lure us into relevant metamorphic attention
(Deleuze and Guattari
in order to determine what is “really” responsible for what
-an agency that doesn't belong to us (who is ‘us’ in
the efficacy of assemblages (in ajayeb)
(assemblage
(the point is) to play a referential game that puts one at risk (instead of protecting via quote)
(let's immediately turn off that) monotonous little critical or reflexive voice whispering that (the only defense we have against fanaticism and the rule of illusions is that) we should not accept being mystified
commenting
(lams kardan
-“The ways the senses themselves have, of throwing themselves beyond what is immediately given, in order to make tentative contact with the other sides of things that we do not sense directly, with the hidden or invisible aspects of the sensible.”
-“suggestions offered by the sensible itself.”
-we never step outside the “flux of participation.”
reading
rhetorical reading
who speaks, writes, and reads? not simply humans
“how can we have any chance of finding a way to say what we don't know how to say if we don't pay attention to the silence of the other inside us?”
literature, is then understood as the experience of risk, chance, the undecidable
(in Western ethical, political, and literary traditions
fable
fables open abyssal aporias
(the very condition of possibility of)
fable
politics of difficulty
...to fall back on the conceptual priority of the subject, agency, or identity as the grounds
(Keenan suggests) “deconstruction” is not offered here as an antiauthoritarian discourse, an attack on grounds, but as an attempt to think about this removal as the condition of any (political) action
(according to fables) responsibility begins in the bad example (
the classical subject
“What is at stake in the fable is, more than anything else, the interpretation and practice of responsibility-our exposure to calls, others, and the names with which we are constituted and which put us in question.” (Keenan)
...practical effectivity of literature