December 3, 2013 at 11:57pm
Done On Derrida
Before I begin I must thank you for your presence. I know that it is not always easy to show oneself and to be seen. It is difficult due to the risky border that is delineated in any dialogue. Are you seeing me or are you seeing someone else? Indeed, it is this very questionability of the border that makes also beginning a challenge. When did I begin? Have I begun? What does a beginning require in order to begin. Can I set myself sufficiently apart from what proceeded me or will that previous context continue to inform the following act? And become a trace, an inscription from the past re-presented in a present. To begin is both a delineation/centralization and a deconstruction of this center. The word both coincides with and is deferred, different, from itself. Why is this? It is a question of relation. In proclaiming a beginning I am assuming a certain center, in fact I am assuming two centers. The center of what I am saying and the center of what was said. If you did not hear or notice the previous center that I inscribe through my present inscription - the past is in the present. I will come back to the idea of a supplement and how a supplement can be both an element of excess added to and an addition in response to a lack.This ambiguity or double potential cannot be overlooked because it is in other words the condition for deconstruction. If I move this table will the contents on the table still exist? Or is their existence, presence and identity relatively decided? Yes and yes. The answer must be both and. Because in either case, if you disregard the contents relativity or acknowledge it. A center is always constructed. In the first case the center lies within the contents and in the second case it lies outside, in the table. The contents do no longer exist because they are no longer in the same temporal and spacial context. Yet they also do exist even though they are not in the same context. This is because what they existed in relationship to can also be questioned. Maybe they were not on the table to some of us. Maybe we recognize the center of the table in relation to which we identify the contents differently. Consequently, the table might remain to some. Maybe the movement of the table reconfirmed as opposed to destabilize the context and identity of the table to some. Maybe it didn’t move. We must also support the idea that the identity of an object is inherently located and self existing as opposed to with other existing because it’s center can be other to you. We cannot know all of what the object is. We must be hospitable enough to let it stand as before despite the changes. Because, what changed? The center was never determined by all. The crypt is when the center is determined by the object itself and we are not let in. So the object can define itself by itself without others. Because what we consider other may not be other. It might be in correspondence with, be defined relative to, other others.
Now, to begin.
I recognize, despite or perhaps because of my limited knowledge of you, your presence.
To present myself. At the same time I do have secrets and there will inevitably be things that are not disclosed and remain perhaps inaccessible to even myself. However, please note, that even this so called cryptic part that I name self, in this sense, other.
November 24, 2013 at 7:50pm
I want to break the digital in two, and see the pixels fall and spring.
What a delicious rupture.
Mark upon mark upon mark upon mark.
What is layering, what is a layer?
What is this, cake?
The word mark originally signified a boundary or border. It is also related to the Norwegian name for forest which was often the marker of a frontier.
When we think of a sign or mark we must think of boundary and interior-exterior encounter.
David Rosand writes that a line upon a surface “immediately transforms that surface, energizes its neutrality”. He thinks that the mark “transforms the flatness of the ground into a kind of “virtual space”“.
A virtual space is an opening up. The virtual space of the mark is the mark as vagina. The mark reveals multiple dimensions. It is a web. I wonder if this cleavage consumes the plane marked as a whole. And, is the opened-up the mark or the plane? Is the mark a slitting and splitting of the plane or is there an addition of something? Is the mark an addition? Is splitting adding?
I think it is the adding of possibilities. How this addition/revelation of others occurs is to be discussed. What happens with the marking is a re-evaluation of the existing which may include both additions and subtractions. It is difficult to say which because that would mean knowing each involved. It would mean delineating an outside and inside. It would mean being sure of what was interior and what was exterior. It would mean measuring. It would mean deciding. It would mean reading.
Virtuality is mark as space, inherently multi-dimensional. The pixel is fiction. The fiction is pixel.
Rosand writes that drawing “translates the material reality into the fiction of imagination”. Marking is more complicated than putting one thing on another. The mark breaks the another. And the mark itself is broken in its expression. Fracturing, breaking as it “lands”.
November 20, 2013 at 1:20am
i want to dance with you
November 19, 2013 at 2:34am
November 18, 2013 at 11:34pm
i know something about you
tell me what it is
i wanted to see you
at home i killed flowers
that’s so badly
wanted to meet you
will you ever see me?
am i invisibility? not even invisible. no one to be invisible.
or maybe i am someone and invisible at the same time.
be invisible WITH me!
and I love you.
did you hear me.
November 14, 2013 at 1:27am
I give my mother the love her mother didn’t/did give her.
To write is to measure. To measure is to be decided.
November 13, 2013 at 10:19am
pensaste en mi como yo pienso en ti
November 12, 2013 at 1:55am
One line online.
"Hair-pulling-" by Diana Hamilton Thoughts
It could be tweets or FB posts put together, one after the other, in a Word document. In the beginning there are wider than usual gaps in between the sentences as if work is required to form a cohesive story. This is often what being on the Internet is like. A fast network of things where each thing may lead you to an infinite number of other things.
There are many new books written in the digital age. Some develop the element of reader participation. The reader gets more authority in the story and can decide how the story grows. There is Afternoon by Michael Joyce. There is the first The Silent History - a novel designed specifically for the iPad/iPhone. And there is A Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan. There is also Pale Fire by Nabokov. These books give the reader a greater voice in a similar way that Hamilton does in her poetry. Sometimes her sentences do not seem related. The reader cannot rely on the author for meaning because it seems even the author does not know. Maybe her text was made randomly by a machine like some of Lanny Jordan Jackson’s work. I fit in between the words.
Also, I feel like I could have written her text, Because in the past few people wrote because in the past few people were writers. Today, there are probably not many more writers than there were in the past. There are however more people that write today. Text is a greater past of communication today than before. We write on a daily basis. Our lives and our relationships are more grounded in text than before. The text I am speaking of is not novels. I think of text messages, FB messages, FB statuses, Tweets, Emails, Blog posts, etc. Consequently, we may not be able to relate to the text of a novel as writers but when we read Hamilton’s Tweet or FB status like text we see ourselves as potential writers of that text. That could be my sentence. We claim an ownership of the text in this way. It becomes closer to us. It is us. It is me 5 minutes ago. Hair-pulling- could be read as individual sentences on their own.
I also like how some parts are weird and unexpected. She also combines different things in weird ways. This again a result of the digital and re-contextualization. How two things that shouldn’t be together end up together and threaten the other. Somehow I can relate to the fragmented and odd. It is inclusive to me. It gives me a sense of belonging. Maybe this is what the Internet does. I have never coincided with a culture, place or time. I have felt split and double with more than one of everything. I think that by not saying anything (and by anything I mean the known or status quo) one can say something (of value). It becomes so out of place that no one can intervene and comment on it in the right way. It is alien to all because it is alien to itself. Because it itself is split. It itself echoes this encounter that is inextricably the Internet. The meeting of two things that is the condition of a web. It is not only a dyad but also an ambiguous dyad. Maybe the hamburger I think is a hamburger is actually an airplane and the helmet I think is a helmet is actually a hamburger. With photoshop I am not sure. And while I will always spend time trying to know, I am more interested in that which cannot be settled because it can be settled. This is the dialogue between the two. Because the hamburger might be manipulated as I comment on it.
I think Diana could have pushed the ambiguity, weirdness, further I would have liked to not be sure what was gripping and what was being gripped in the last line. Maybe it was a penis, or a baby or a hair?
How do we think online? Maybe we think in clicks. One page to the next. Refresh, delete. Not a continuous sawing or a quick blowing accomplishes something online. A click does. Or a tap. Or a slide… Hamilton’s sentences are like clicks. In the future I think we will engage with the online in three dimensions and with all of our senses. We will step into a page. Lick open a text. Throw a status. We will think in dance.
I want to write a text like this. For that time. Hair-pulling.
November 10, 2013 at 11:27pm
i hear the stark sun wind field when speak
it tears ties and reigns without