Wednesday, March 25, 2009

The Shadows of Totalization, Part XVIII

In my last post, I stated this assumption: 1) there is an unconscious. I do not thereby commit to this dualism: conscious/unconscious. How can this be so?

Say there is this dualism: subject/object. The subject is separated from the object, the object is outside the subject, and it can’t come in. In fact, the object is so separated from the subject, so outside the subject, it becomes impossible to understand how the subject can even know there is an object. (Unless representation is taken as absolute, or certain or absolutely certain, what can be known without being what needs to be explained.)

I stand back from dualism in general, this dualism of the subject/object in particular, and I’m appalled, delighted: how did such a peculiar arrangement not only come to be formed, but come to seem natural? not only come to seem natural, but necessary; necessary and irreplaceable, supreme? Natural-necessary-irreplaceable-supreme—all one thing, all the same!

What happens, though, when the subject takes itself as object?(Psychoanalysis?) Does the object come in? (Introspection?) Does the subject go out? (Expressionism?) Can the subject take itself as its own object but insist upon keeping representation as a kind of coordinate system? (Which means somehow keeping the distinction of subject-inside and object-outside, even though this distinction would seemingly be collapsed, rendered invalid, in the movement of the subject taking itself as object.)

These responses to the subject taking itself as object erode to some degree both concepts, but they also to some degree retain or conserve them. In other words, they could represent the initial stages of some process. They could represent the initial stages of some process which nevertheless is arrested at this initial stage.

Putting my cards on the table (I need to get back to work, for one thing): they give the inklings of deconstruction, and will begin a deconstruction as long as they are not settled for as products, end products, finalities. I didn’t get as far as I wanted to in answering, “How can I assume there is an unconscious without commiting to the dualism of conscious/unconscious," but I will go further when I have more time.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

YES, let's erase or reinstate that damned spot in between the two tyrants: the subject and the object. There is masturbation going on in the copula between the subject and the predicate, or is the subject mounting itself? A fatal attraction or mutual destruction?

Let's go get them!


4:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yusef, you have edited the original post - and made it sharper. Good.

This is a compelling theme: subject / object. Let's explore this.

I need to think some more, too.

I'll take the grammatical route, I think, in my next post. Just a few ideas: We need to transcend the first, second, and third person - maybe add a fourth. And also to replace (or elaborate on) the verb.

I'll (oh shit: how to escape the personal pronouns!!!) try to think the infinitive as the only way out: process, rather than finalities.

But damn it: We are locked in the straitjacket of language. So, let's embrace the captivity and shake ourselves loose, knowing exactly what we are doing.

I look forward to your next post - and will try to produce one of mine.

6:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need to transcend the personal pronouns? Please first show this is possible, and then, how.

9:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home