As always, there is an elegance to the brutality of these words, like someone making poetry from the black box of a life always crashing, in which the moral of the story is its absence, its oncoming irrelevance. Careful words which resist stabilisation, which carefully resist stabilisation and messily refuse guilt without making any claim to innocence, and document a coming into existence organised around the assertion of this refusal. Affirming through denial and denying through affirmation an openness to ungraspable experience in no way mystical, in fact something approaching the opposite, asymptotically moving toward a life stripped of illusion even of a momentary comfort, or of a secret faith in the economies of desire.
What I didn’t write above, in part because of my own policing of the boundaries of commentary and interpretation – and in part because despite the direct comment on your site and your text I did not take the chance of addressing you directly – is that, in reference to economies of desire, of risk and response, exposure and recognition, as well as to the anxieties of an unavoidable excess in my own investments in the responses of others evident also in these endless subclauses: I genuinely see something like courage in your words, an obscure responsibility as the unacknowledged, secret, ‘embarrassing’ truth working through every line, even a kind of movement of resistance the content of which, even the existence of which, cannot be separated from the action, in each instance, of publishing, and of publishing on-line. “You are caught in the net. You can cut the meshes, but the net is there.” And without there being any single or stable answer to be simply formulated and formalised, it is this manifestation of everyday negotiations and resistances which constantly forces the question, in each instance and ‘in general’.
As always, there is an elegance to the brutality of these words, like someone making poetry from the black box of a life always crashing, in which the moral of the story is its absence, its oncoming irrelevance. Careful words which resist stabilisation, which carefully resist stabilisation and messily refuse guilt without making any claim to innocence, and document a coming into existence organised around the assertion of this refusal. Affirming through denial and denying through affirmation an openness to ungraspable experience in no way mystical, in fact something approaching the opposite, asymptotically moving toward a life stripped of illusion even of a momentary comfort, or of a secret faith in the economies of desire.
Comment by sovereign beast 07/08/2010 @ 11:36 pmWhat I didn’t write above, in part because of my own policing of the boundaries of commentary and interpretation – and in part because despite the direct comment on your site and your text I did not take the chance of addressing you directly – is that, in reference to economies of desire, of risk and response, exposure and recognition, as well as to the anxieties of an unavoidable excess in my own investments in the responses of others evident also in these endless subclauses: I genuinely see something like courage in your words, an obscure responsibility as the unacknowledged, secret, ‘embarrassing’ truth working through every line, even a kind of movement of resistance the content of which, even the existence of which, cannot be separated from the action, in each instance, of publishing, and of publishing on-line. “You are caught in the net. You can cut the meshes, but the net is there.” And without there being any single or stable answer to be simply formulated and formalised, it is this manifestation of everyday negotiations and resistances which constantly forces the question, in each instance and ‘in general’.
Comment by sovereign beast 09/08/2010 @ 4:03 am