Saturday, November 18, 2006

Feminine Hungers/scratchwork

To speak of feminism as hungering...

Recently the word temporality has afixed itself to the inner sanction of my mental preference. Mostly I cling to this notion to emphasize the flatness of modernity. The horizon-less landscape (circa 20th century) mirrors and informs a sense of self orchestrated around a false synchronization, which is enforced by interwoven time standardizations.

I caprice to think of the object of feminism in terms of two variables: personae & time.

Throughout life I have been drawn to strong feminine personas (from Artemis & Jean d'Arc to Juliette Binoche and Kate Winslet). What these women have in common is an irreducibility. It is not just that they are complicated as that would imply a tension between relatively equivalent characteristics, but rather, that they have a "hunger," which brings them to engage and become suppliant to many different temporalities (think Waterhouse paintings). These women have the courage or nature to express DRIVES that perform and struggle in the world with the properties of alien dark matter. As a result, they become strong & dynamic people that seem to transgress individual identity, seem to refract the poisons of society, ultlimately seem to engage a kind of entropy that deflates the mind-body dualism and emits a rush of being. -->To grip a kind of vitality under which the scaffolds of time crumble, and the orchestrations of space (logically indebted to time constructions) are exposed as a mirage of "patriarchal" assembly.


Persona is an extremely confessional means of thinking about the blurred lines between epochs and people without evoking more complicated ideas of phenomenology or collective unconscious, which often act as kill joys to the tantilizing subject of personhood. What the category of personae allows one to do is understand something in the more neutral process of autopoesis. In other words, there is never a sense that you are freezing an object or ascribing to a base causal bias (bottom down or top up); rather, you preserve the essence, which is to say, the dynamic of the thing.

to speak of essences is metaphysical and out of fashion. however, the current subtext, which poses conversations, descriptions, and truths around things "self-evident" is extraordinarily obtuse in grappling with dynamic.

Heiddegar self-evident as modern. i.e. genes rather than organism.

truths = self-evident (the basis for democracy --> mirror of nature
self-evident implies that they exist in human nature
but as stendahl or mishima attest to human nature is not self-evident.
nor is it weighted.
Freud capitalizes on a language by which self-evident and linear truths are activated according to different drives. Unfortunately, his science assumes the activation of an intentionality rather than the suspension of multiple intententionalities.
*see quantonics

relatively equivalent characteristics = Hume (from sentiment to standard)...

these women seem to be the guardians of sentiment
(and senitment here is not meant to connote its caprice, sentimentality,
but rather a kind of sense-perception that preserves the blurs, which become eclipsed by our standardized knowledge claims. taste
(there is an important movement here from Hume to Freud)

somehow the masculine hungering always seems to address a spiritual dualism (an other-worldliness) that is indebted to a linear thinking as dualism concerns itself with contradictions (thought out in terms of opposing properties).
this is st. augustine
rather than simultaneity.

st. augustine's return to the wisdom of his mother is done in a very dualistic appreciation.

to make the human abyss pregnant. i.e. the sudden appearance of a sting-ray.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

top [url=]uk bonus casino[/url] brake the latest [url=]casino games[/url] manumitted no deposit bonus at the chief [url=]baywatchcasino

8:53 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home