|
a context in which it becomes self-evident
that the soul occurs in this way, there is simply no out. As far as
how far that community, the one established by Honesty, can be extended,
yes, you are right, I am “really saying how far it can extended
in writing,” at least initially. Again this comes back
to that struggle: the text is another one of those contexts in which
through dispersion soul occurs. What I’m saying is that soul
is concrete, it is there. It seems to me that one makes a context
in the text by the quality of one’s movement, which is to say
of one’s thinking. A text that establishes an interesting context
is one that moves interestingly (of course this has nothing to do
with content). This is the extending of community. Here is why: every
instance by which soul occurs removes the possibility of tyranny for
that instance. By this I DO NOT mean that writing is the only way
of extending community—it is just the easiest for me. I cannot
stand the establishment of artifacts or a life lived subservient to
an Institution. There can be no difference between writing and living.
If there is then Honesty is out the window, because then Truth is
simply replaced with Art. Do you see? Honesty, writing and the text
are a chance for everything to count, over against Truth, Poetry and
the poem. Poetry is about perpetuating its own power. I don’t
believe in Poetry because I have no interest in being a priest.
02-26-02 You say “moving interestingly”=Honesty, that
is, the self dispersed. I’m all for that too. I’m curious—a
relationship between one part of a text and the next can be seen as
a power relationship, so does an “honest” reaction or
response to what’s just occurred in the text (cleansed, perhaps,
of any urge to contain or continue what’s gone before) obviate
the power relationship? is that the absence of tyranny? If so, it
sounds attractive, but I’m not sure I agree. I wonder, are you
implying, through Honesty, a kind of utopia of text? |
|
“Let’s have text be a place
where no tyranny occurs, where self is dispersed, where honesty occurs”…is
that a fair rendering of what you’re saying? I assume you mean
that the self is dispersed consciously—it’s unable to
take a position of power against or above the other(s) (others or
other parts of the text) because of the knowledge that One is Many.
But the big question is: isn’t it possible to exert power, exert
agency, exert tyranny, from a position of Honesty and self-dispersal?
I know this sounds contradictory but let me explain: in writing (or
any activity) one pushes off from, moves off from, a point in the
text. That move is the self. It’s entirely composed of otherness,
of what it’s moving from and what it’s moving into: it
is its environs. Nevertheless (and I believe in free will) the self
(even though it is composed of otherness) goes in a particular direction,
one that is a choice. I don’t see why that agency might not
take the form of control, coercion, even tyranny. Would you argue,
perhaps, that the fact that self is defined by relationship (which
implies, I take it, honesty and self-dispersal) must mean tyranny
can’t happen at the moment that definition is acknowledged?
I’d say our definition of self is simply accurate. It doesn’t
imply anything about what that self does. The self, however self-dispersing,
retains its position-taking abilities. That’s what it does—it
moves. It might seem that anyone, honestly knowing that a self “occurs
in the between” wouldn’t act in any way to control or
tyrannize. I think that’s optimistic. A self acts in movement,
and when it does so, it pushes off against otherness and it alters
the world. That given, I don’t think we can say for sure that
every self will deny itself tyranny. If we can’t not alter the
world—if we can’t avoid exerting some control over it—the
question becomes, “What control do we choose? How shall we exert
impact on the world or the community (because exert impact on it we
will)?” That is, attention does not obviate the problem of |
|
|