Friday, August 26, 2011

An Example of a Limit Graph

the fundamentals of mistranslation - the lost language - the blank - parody essence of comic - the ahistorical - presentism - here and now epicurean, immanence - the limit of empiricism - the surface - fashion - orientalism

The surface - comedy the face, tragedy the obverse - both constitute the empirical

Someone tells me a joke. I then, in turn, tell that Sabda (speech) to someone else. I am questioned whether I have the right to tell that joke. I explain that I obtained the rights the previous afternoon. My questioner nods in assent and allows me to tell the punchline.

The late Vedic period holds speech as nitya, and in an interaction with artha (a kind of meaning). In the speech act, the particular, reference is dissolved into performance, or the reference becomes created through an action (an analog to sacrifice - two is pronounced man and wife through a similar abstract-magical operation as those ritually consecrated. Where is time in performance, in the performances of Saint Augustine's treacherous past, in the performances of the scholar-priest who defines and limits with words, but words here spoken.

The word spoken, and the relaying of that word's telephone game follows inevitable distortion. Whatever he or she had said, I didn't quite get it, but still you'll relay something (the transfer from subject to object). Bearing truth in lektons, some contortion is passed along. Someone asks you to write it down. Okay, you say, but it won't be the same.

The naming of things. In the beginning, there were a bunch of people and some things without names and one ingenious group that mouthed om which beat everyone to the punch by naming everything. What is worse, categories or no categories? The categoritians began to point at things and say gavagai, to which their companions replied that what they said depended on their presuppositions of space and time and who knows, maybe they were like those people with all those verbs that Borges or his copyists talked about. So no one can agree what's named what, but they don't have anything else to do, so they keep pointing at stuff and saying things and nodding and running around.

It might be said that the language of this people - lost now and attested only in a few undeciphered documents - was truly the lost generation that all the hip Americans (in Paris when it was cool) were talking about. This alienation, human from tree, squirrel from sky, rock from ocean, was the inherent blank in their conversations. Was it a parody? Was everything supposed to be funny, merely to mock the idea that any reference was possible (and the resultant play a collective joke to be enjoyed by participants and vex those outside of it - such as the scholars of today) - or was it rather that this interminable uncertainty was a cause for severe disturbance? One, driven to despair, began to sculpt a large mound, to the frenzied cries of those around him.

The Americans, after have returned, declared that this soil was no longer theirs - that now they saw that America was a big sham and that they'd have to start writing novels about how lame America was which would in turn be honoured by both them and their country. What matters is what happens here and now. Whitney explained that he didn't need your crummy book-learning, that his Vak (in anointed Brahmans) and Davincian nature-attack complex was enough to reconfigure things. He could build anything they said - but this story when retold was distorted and no one really understood, though there was a statue later on that they kept seeing on their way to wherever (it didn't really look like him, but then no one of that generation knew what he looked like, nor does anyone now). Here and now, in the repentant world of the Augustan polemicist, were all those Georgian problems of food and power (now solved through the grace of gadgets) that caused the saint to wield a punctum in attacking the infidels, all those who questioned the devout intuition of the regretful now. The worldly that abnegated the worldly. And all confessed in an object (with all its disagreements) reified into spawn by subsequent generations.

For all our successful misinterpretations of what was said, we present the superficial as the non-reference of the appearance (which determines the considerable) - how taking up the cross-fertilization of cultures (one word to another, objects mixed up therein) fails to adequately tell a present. But so what? People talk, they get things done, whatever abstruse construct you are proposing life goes on, people do their thing and act and accomplish different things. So it is - in miscommunicating a ramble only hopes might perform an injunction into locations where it has no right. And the joy of the superficial relates this immediacy, whose ridicule rings at once in the ears of the attendant at the performance.