Rationality and Totality, Part IX
I can take any work of philosophy or literature and identify themes or memes or ideas or concepts which I can equate to a letter symbol. To these thought elements (however I wish to describe them, or cut and dice them,) I can attach logical operators (according to any scheme of logical operation, or all schemes of logical operation, applied successively,) which I could then analyze to observe whether the work worked correctly, according to the rules governing the use of the logical operators.
Alternatively, I can identify the thought elements of the work, which I can then combine or permute according to the well-established procedures of combination or permutation, to “create” or “produce” a stunning array of new works, which become a garden of forking paths within which, indistinguishable, the first or “original” work reposes as one among the many. My five-year old laptop computer is capable of performing the operations of combination or permutation (or the logical operations mentioned above,) in less than a second, even on the most complicated works of culture. Instead of using my computer to perform combinations or permutations, I could use my scissors to make a “cut-up” in the manner of Burroughs and Gysin, which manner I believe to be one of permutation-combination I am talking about.
Personally, I have enjoyed what results from either the first or second methods, (as applied by low-tech or high-tech laborers of thought.) The first method, which I will call a “rectification” method, can be electrifying in its lucidity; the second method, which I will call a “combperm” method, may give a result which is delightfully unexpected and “innovative and new,” (even though all elements of final result were given beforehand—that there can be such surprise in such a case is part of what I am hoping to be able to investigate.) Both methods may result in the production of humor: in the latter case it might be slapstick or silly, while in the former, it would be the laughing at blunders—something which I like not to indulge in or else I would have to allow others to laugh at me almost nonstop.
But: isn’t there something grotesque and unsettling in allowing either the first or second method being called “creative” or “productive”? Does this sense of the grotesque and unsettling need to be affirmed as a gesture of amor fati (or whatever,) or may we allow ourselves to hope creativity and productivity include something more, something more “vital” (apologies!) and that something more is where the real fireworks happen? (It’s July 4, 2008—no apologies!) Is that hope for something more from creativity and productivity the slip from immanence into faux transcendence (or true transcendence, what do I know?), into ressentiment of life for not giving more than it gives, (stingy, mean, suffering-inducing life!) If there is a dissatisfaction with what the combperm method can create and produce, could that stem, not from its mechanical aspect, but from its inability (which comes from where? From its human upstream feed?) to fully pull in all which would or could be available for combining and permuting?
Alternatively, I can identify the thought elements of the work, which I can then combine or permute according to the well-established procedures of combination or permutation, to “create” or “produce” a stunning array of new works, which become a garden of forking paths within which, indistinguishable, the first or “original” work reposes as one among the many. My five-year old laptop computer is capable of performing the operations of combination or permutation (or the logical operations mentioned above,) in less than a second, even on the most complicated works of culture. Instead of using my computer to perform combinations or permutations, I could use my scissors to make a “cut-up” in the manner of Burroughs and Gysin, which manner I believe to be one of permutation-combination I am talking about.
Personally, I have enjoyed what results from either the first or second methods, (as applied by low-tech or high-tech laborers of thought.) The first method, which I will call a “rectification” method, can be electrifying in its lucidity; the second method, which I will call a “combperm” method, may give a result which is delightfully unexpected and “innovative and new,” (even though all elements of final result were given beforehand—that there can be such surprise in such a case is part of what I am hoping to be able to investigate.) Both methods may result in the production of humor: in the latter case it might be slapstick or silly, while in the former, it would be the laughing at blunders—something which I like not to indulge in or else I would have to allow others to laugh at me almost nonstop.
But: isn’t there something grotesque and unsettling in allowing either the first or second method being called “creative” or “productive”? Does this sense of the grotesque and unsettling need to be affirmed as a gesture of amor fati (or whatever,) or may we allow ourselves to hope creativity and productivity include something more, something more “vital” (apologies!) and that something more is where the real fireworks happen? (It’s July 4, 2008—no apologies!) Is that hope for something more from creativity and productivity the slip from immanence into faux transcendence (or true transcendence, what do I know?), into ressentiment of life for not giving more than it gives, (stingy, mean, suffering-inducing life!) If there is a dissatisfaction with what the combperm method can create and produce, could that stem, not from its mechanical aspect, but from its inability (which comes from where? From its human upstream feed?) to fully pull in all which would or could be available for combining and permuting?
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 12:42 PM
3 Comments:
Your write, Yusef,
…or may we allow ourselves to hope creativity and productivity include something more, something more “vital” (apologies!) and that something more is where the real fireworks happen? (It’s July 4, 2008—no apologies!) Is that hope for something more from creativity and productivity the slip from immanence into faux transcendence (or true transcendence, what do I know?), into ressentiment of life for not giving more than it gives, (stingy, mean, suffering-inducing life!)
Now - with due respect, Yusef - aren’t we (you?) being too romanticist or even sentimental here? There is of course always the exhilaration of philosophical discovery: Hey, that’s a NEW idea, a novel view of interpretation, which in itself is life-affirming and immensely gratifying, but does it need to become transcendent? No. Inspirational, yes. An expression of Jouissance, certainly. But it surely doesn’t lead to ressentiment of life or lamenting the stinginess of ditto.
Let’s change metaphors and listen to it this way,
Philosophy is nothing but music, from the most humble melody to the grandest of songs, a sort of cosmic Sprechgesang. The owl of Minerva has its screeches and its songs. The principles in philosophy are screeches, around which concepts develop their songs. (from Preface to the Italian edition of “A Thousand Plateaus” in “Two Regimes of Madness”, p. 306)
Orla
Now with due respect to you, Orla, I think you may have misunderstood the question, (which may have been due to the way I expressed it, for which I apologize to you.)
(If this is due to the way I expressed myself, could you take a moment to indicate how so? I know that's a big thing to ask.)
I was trying to ask whether the request for creativity and productivity to be "something more" than the "rote" (if that word could escape its deprecating connotations,)creativeness and productivity of the combi-permu method might not represent the lapse from affirmation into ressentiment.
I didn't mean to suggest that creativity and productivity must by necessity be viewed as transcendental in nature. Is that what you thought I was saying?
Do you think that if we get an "aha" feeling or feeling of elation or inspiration, that's a sign we're in the presence of the "new or innovative", the creative and the productive,and we're in an affirming mode?
If we want "something more" when we've already got enough, other than slapping a "greedy" moral label on that,aren't we positioning ourselves as superior to life, the judges of life, declaring life insufficient? Under what circumstances can that be a creative, productive stance?
--Yusef
PS. I hope you have a good trip. I'll miss you.
Wow, what a fascinating question, Yusef. Thank you for that!
Let me try and trace your comment as best I can and respond.
First, your original post: I guess I was too slow (or drunk! - it was late at night) to really understand your reflections. I reacted to the statement (which I quoted above) about our hope that creativity would somehow produce more (fireworks, etc) and then move into another realm (you DID make light of it calling it "faux transcendence"). Then I guess my knee-jerk reaction to anything "transcendental in nature" kicked in.
When you then wrote about how this might slip into ressentiment of life, that stubborn and decidedly UNcreative binary thinking kicked in - in my dazed head.
But I did notice and did enjoy your description of the effects of your “combperm” method in "forming a garden of forking paths within which, indistinguishable, the first or “original” work reposes as one among the many."
In your comment to my comment your question suddenly opens up. Now, I get it.
If we want (or hope for) something more, "aren't we positioning ourselves as superior to life, the judges of life, declaring life insufficient? Under what circumstances can that be a creative, productive stance?"
Now, that's a really question to ponder. I can't quite wrap my mind around it yet. Just a few stray thoughts:
Is there an "outside" to life? In other words is it meaningful to suggest that we can be "superior" to it, or consequently "judge" it?
My initial reaction would be: No.
The ability to move "outside" of life is of course included in life.
Likewise when we might slip into ressentiment and be become angry AT life for being stingy, mean, and suffering-inducing.
When you ask,
"Do you think that if we get an "aha" feeling or feeling of elation or inspiration, that's a sign we're in the presence of the "new or innovative", the creative and the productive,and we're in an affirming mode?"
On a purely psychological level I would agree, or in the Nietzschean sense of being a "Yes-sayer" to life (even as pathetic Last Men with our little pleasures).
But I think we might run into difficulty on a philosophical level in the definition of "affirmation".
This is an issue I would really like to explore further - at a later stage: Comparing Nietzsche and Deleuze in this regard. I haven't delved into this enough to be sure about whether they agree or not.
So, Yusef, I don't think you expressed yourself poorly. I was just understanding you badly.
All the best,
Orla
Post a Comment
<< Home