Visp by bus at 11:05

Wrote this today in Chris Kraus‘s course at EGS. I was pleased with it but Chris felt that the use of adjectives might be helpful. I’m conflicted, as I feel they bring a questionable overcoding of the descriptive. Seems I may need to stick to theory… still, this was raw and written in ten minutes with no prep time. Given this material deficiency that limits, I’ve created a new category for the classification of such !writing.

Visp by bus at 11:05
Round trip ticket. Departure in fifteen minutes. In Strict Confidence in my headphones today… I guess Critchley’s presentation didn’t completely scare away the persistent Melancholic. Mahler perhaps on the trip back.

There’s the older fellow from last night’s lecture.. .Hermacher? Hamacher? “Gentle Lacanian Derridian Levinasian” signifies louder than proper names. A smile as I walk in. Pleasentries about the speech last night. Damn I have got to get out of the patheticisms of superficialities and gated minds.

A meaningful conversation. Humility is present with this man. Strange how that persists with those touched by Derrida. A place I hope to continue to uncover and explore.

A conversation on where I’m from… does he mean geographically, historically, experientially? Damn these categories. They always screw with those of us who find our home in the transition, never comfortable with the tyranny of a persistent locale. Hermes grows restless when fixed in place and time.

An experiment in humility and intentionality might be best. This gentle being deserves sincerity, so I’m afraid the problematic of the strange worlds of capital and Mahler will come out. It’s always too overbearing for casual conversation explaining this foreignness in non-musical Language.

I share my connection to theory from Mahler, Bruckner… and explain how Adorno has helped me find the narrow pathway between these islands. Oh my god. He became a theorist because of an inspiration from Adorno when he was in high school?!! Who is this Lacanian Derridian? A story about Adorno’s passing… as the bus continues down the mountains to where Adorno passed, as we pass forward. Time truly is a fraud. A path changed with that death in the valley before us, to Berlin and then to Derrida in Paris, instead of Frankfurt. Strange, this accidential consequentiality is and the complexity of the encounter.

Conversation weaves in and out in the instability of the experience, of a delocalized time. Serres would be pleased with this discussion. Strange Swiss names of towns that belong in Norway. More delocalization. Discussion of the dogs of war, and strong resonance and interest in the teaching of Derrida and Levinas not only to my debaters, but to our debate circuit, the other teams, the judges, and coaches. This gentle being seems quite pleased with the journey we’re taking..

Time encroaches. 12 minutes to his train as we arrive in Visp. Gracious parting greetings… not a goodbye but a welcoming. Chronos fails in its attempt at closure. A warm handshake, a parting and an opening.

Visp Terminal

Simon Critchley on Space

“Space is alien, frightening and terrifying, other than through scientific laws which explain its motion but don’t give us the meaning back. Gnosticism comes back in a new way; we live in a world indifferent to us. If we want to create meaning, we have to create another world.” – Simon Critchley, European Graduate School lecture, June 4 2011

Simon Critchley on Futurism

“The future is a delusion; it’s fascist. You end up with a delusion of the present which is novel and then you extrapolate from there. That’s fascism. That’s capitalism. That’s an amnesia of the present and ultimately an ideology against the future. The point is to try and stop, to insert a spoke into the motor of history and slow things down. The idea that we need to accelerate is nothing more than ideology.” – Simon Critchley, European Graduate School lecture, June 4 2011

Black Hole Theory of Fascism

It might appear that the primary determinant for the bifurcation of a State into a fascist form is not what some theorists might suggest — from populations having “natural inclinations” or other compelling externalities driving the people and/or state toward fascism, societal demands for strong order in times of chaos, or other “outside the system” root causes – but rather a function that has a fractal equivalence to solar lifecycles.

Simply put, most stars lack sufficient mass (and more appropriately, velocity and aggressive consumption of excess) necessary for the conditions to create a black hole. As such, they end up in modest post-modern form: dull brown dwarfs of mediocrity. But give a star sufficient resource mass, propel it through velocity into a pattern of voracious consumption and ejection of surplus, and it reaches a problematic when the unreconcilability of its irrationally unsustainable trajectory is uncovered. Black holes don’t go into 12-step coping programs; they don’t acknowledge the inevitable. They deny, resist, assault, reject and oppose; they go down shooting, and “take all they can with them to hell.” They lash out, beyond Freud’s Melancholia, clinging to fundamentalist metaphysic, nihilism, or worse, a combination of the two in the construction of a death-centered fascist State.

Germany realized this acceleration-toward-singularity in its aggressive radicalization beyond the collapse of meaning inherent in the implosion of the Weimar Republic. Italy, Franco’s Spain, Lenin’s utopian metaphysic perverted by Stalin’s paranoid manufacturing race of excess, all have demonstrated the capacity for an the creation of singularities when national/cultural meaning is exhausted, unlike the modest collapse and irrelevance of other nation-states. One wonders what outcome awaits the imminent exhaustion of not one, but two predominant empires when meaning escapes the populace of the U.S. and China.

Civil War Ears

One-hundred years ago today, Gustav Mahler died. The terribly premature passing of the remarkable, exceptional and initial post-modern, post-structural composer was an untimely moment early, not only for its epoch, but for ours some century later where our ears are yet unprepared for the message Mahler left us with. Mahler’s passing today still leaves us alarmed, but perhaps finally open to the call of an orchestration ten decades prior.

Strangely, most western, American ears today resonate around the period of the campfire songs of Robert Schumann, a moment of certainty in mode, key and textual representation in an epoch of tonal and textual certitude. Structurally placed, this chromatic certainty features a strong centeredness, resonant perhaps with the exceptionality of a Western objectivist metaphysic, well placed in an affirmation of the Pax EuroAmericana.

The Invisibility of the Slow Motion Tsunami

A slow motion tsunami creeps toward the south, Cloaked in stealth before the hyperactive news media of the telosphere, it’s cascading 20m high walls of water, doubling the expression of Japan’s quake-initiated terror. Can slow speeds render an existential threat invisible before the dromosphere?

Of Virilio’s Message of Trajectivity: A Theoretical Re-Orientation Toward Singularity

Following the La Rochelle Assemblage’s autopoietic meeting with Paul Virilio today, and his conveyance of his focused attention on Trajectory (the problematic site between Objectivity and Subjectivity), I realized that the purpose of this post-structural pilgrimage was one which led to the focusing of my own experiment. As such, the progression of a journal was realized tonight to be necessary.

As today’s outcome was the remarkably curious construct of autopoiesis (in many ways), I’m hesitant to immediate overcode this vital effort with structures, frameworks and excessive expectations; they weren’t immanent in the preceding landscape and shouldn’t be read in in retrospect. While I feel it to be appropriate to communicate some extent of expectation at this re-beginning, I recognize the importance of sustainability and forward momentum that must accumulate out of today’s singularity.

I’ll confess: my immediate interpretation of Virilio’s message was one seeking grand ontologies (didn’t Dan Hughes say at lunch that Virilio says to set the Heidegger aside and read Husserl?!). I am unfortunately and inexcusably excessively Heideggerian, curiously from some heritage I still don’t understand, and it’s apparent in my inter-personal engagements. As such, there is a parallel resonance to Virilio’s concern with trajectivity and that of my recognition and apology to my wife for years pursing grand entrepreneurial outsides that never manifest (when the real issue was one of inside). There’s a remarkable sense of humor in this coincidental occurrence: just as many were seeking ontological explanations to the nature of Being (and other noble projects of Universal importance), the laundry didn’t get washed and the bills paid. Phenomenology’s attempt to break from detached idealism didn’t get far before it fell into the same trap. Marx may have left his family to starve while he contemplated, but we students of the phenomenological tradition are supposed to know better!

As such, Virilio’s trajectivity appears to open a remarkably inward, intrapersonal path, through the application of the theory onto a singularity of individual. Even my absence of an understanding of French didn’t fail me in recognizing this importance of the singularity: theory needs to be personal and singular! How often must we create grand explanations of universals “for the purpose of saving the Other” (or other important purpose), commanding the necessity of not universalizing, while creating a universal model in the end?

Given this opening, transferred by Virilio to our little assemblage, I’m liberated from the weight lifted that was crushing me into paralysis on the experiment. Expectations of greater-than-100-page-daily readings, expansive immediate command of the literature, and other self-imposed mandates that dictated the prerequisite for minimal credibility were lifted. More importantly, however, an immediate connection via the path of the Trajectory was established, resonating significantly not only in my attention around the trajectory Foucault illuminates which I’ve internally extended through my first-hand engagement in the Vectoralist realm into a heterogeneous totalitarianism, but into a region my “trade skills” as a risk and information security executive has given me experiential theoretical insight.

This is a path that can be extended; a path that connects to native thought, links through Virilio, Foucault, Serres and other friends, and focuses the problem on the singularity which itself is disruptive and transformative.

Much else was learned today, some of which will be shared in due time and others will be trapped to the erosion of the phenomenological field back into the sea of chaos. The old woman beggar who seemed to bring good wishes to a traveller who has not once before given a penny, the curiosity of the spelling of a name, the extensive debates on ethics of flowers, greetings and related protocol, and the recognition of respect for fellow travelers clearly called in their own way to take on a remarkably unexplored, difficult path will be those phantoms alluded to but not illuminated further.

One final confession: There was substantial self-debate about the determination of disclosure of this journal effort. Several years ago, when I stirred from my Peter Klaus slumber and began judging policy debate, I decided from that beginning that I would always disclose my biases, subjectivities, relationships, results and accept the consequence for the error that was inherent in my re-approach. It’s remarkably easy to refuse to disclose one’s decision; it’s another matter to stake it on the line each time, particularly from a radically different perspective and applied theory-base and normative system (of some two decades prior), providing the very cites for the debaters to tear you to pieces through a decision contrary to expectation. For two years, it was perhaps the most humiliating, terrifying responsibility which faced me each and every weekend (my varsity debater and son can attest to this). Yet this open disclosure provided benefits that were not anticipated at the time. Quickly, my responsibility toward the teams in the room through the utmost diligence in judging I could provide at the time led to greater understanding, discussion, emails, orientation, and crystallization of thought. In a similar respect, I’ve taken to providing the same painful disclosure here, fully knowing that many of my thoughts are not pedigreed, may be trivially known and fully explored by established theorists known to most, or simply put, these conjectures under the experiment may be absolutely and foolishly incorrect.

With this humility and confession of intent, I submit the opening of the project in its next phase and ask for the patience and understanding of the reader.