January 20, 2005

رنج

(angoisse) اضطراب
عاشق، بنا به این یا آن احتمال، احساس می­کند که دستخوش ترس از یک خطر، یک صدمه، یک وانهادگی، یک بیزاری شده -- احساسی که اسم اضطراب را روی آن می­گذارد

امشب تنها به هتل بر می­گردم؛ دیگری تصمیم گرفته دیرتر برگردد. اضطراب­ها پیشاپیش آغاز شده اند، مثل سمی که از پیش تدارک دیده شده، حسادت، وانهادگی، بی­قراری؛ آن­ها مترصد کم­ترین مجال ممکن اند تا خود را به­خوبی مبرز سازند. کتابی بر می­دارم و قرص خوابی، "آرام­بخش" ی می­خورم. سکوت این هتل بزرگ طنین­انداز می­شود، بی­اعتنا، ابلهانه، صدای خفیف شرشر آب در وان­ها؛ مبلمان اتاق، چراغ­ها احمقانه اند، هیچ چیز دوستانه یی نیست، که گرم­ام کند ("من سردم است، بگذار برگردم پاریس"). اضطراب اوج می­گیرد، پیشرفت­اش را حس می­کنم، مثل حدیث سقراط (که دارم می­خوانم­اش) و سردی شوکران را که در تن می­دود احساس می­کنم؛ صدای­اش را می­شنوم که دارد خودش را مثل فیگوری محتوم از متن چیزهایی که این­جای اند بیرون می­کشد
(و آیا، برای این که چیزی شاید اتفاق بیافتد، باید سوگند بخورم؟)

روان­پریش با ترس از سقوط سر می­کند (انواع روان پریشی­ها صرفا" دفاع­هایی در برابر این ترس اند). اما "ترس بیمارگونه از سقوط ترس از آشوبی است که پیش از این تجربه شده (رنج ازلی) ... و لحظاتی هست که یک بیمار نیاز دارد به او بگویند سقوط، که ترس از آن زندگی­اش را به فلاکت کشانده، پیش از این رخ داده". به نظر می­رسد که، اضطراب عاشق هم این گونه است: این ترس از ماتمی است که پیش از این عارض شده، از هم آغاز عشق، از همان اولین لحظه که "مفتون" شدم. یک نفر باید باشد که به من بگوید: دیگر مضطرب نباش – تو پیش از این او را از دست داده ای
.
گزیده گویه یی دیگر از سخن عاشق، رولان بارت

Labels:

21 نظر:

Anonymous Anonymous مي نويسد:

پيام جان
بی نهايت ممنون از اين نوشته
لحظه شماری میکنم برای این کتاب

2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous مي نويسد:

Barthes should read the last chapter of Land's book (Inconclusive Communication) which of course published years after his death! The semiotic vertigo that Barthes grasps in the panorama suits ‘love-recovery-love-recovery...’ cycle of living, emotional survival, in which desire is already a dead ruin; Barthes’ semiotic vertigo of love and all the defensive mechanisms it triggers are mostly one sided without receiver (the amount of noise is necessary to decode the signal [variation law] but its amount should never exceeds the signal), in Barthes account, the beloved too should be familiar with the details of this desire to recovery (the ‘next love’; it is what matters) not love. A glance at Hollywood movies, Barthes’s account of lover and love is intensely manifested in American movies, I love to recover to love someone else to recover to love someone else; even Chinese Erotics (that Lyotard criticizes) corresponding to Wittfogel’s hydraulic bureaucracy couldn’t come up with such a popular formula for the masses (working like an appetizer for their little organic survivals, preprogrammed openness, economical communications); Love-Recovery cycle that Barthes maps is of course Proustian but reminds the ever refining self-fertilizing cycle of Aristotle (nothing should be wasted as it is needed in the next phase of cycle, the next love, the next recovery from the last love). Not a good idea to connect this account of Love to Barthes’ personal life (although we can’t ignore it) but what he depicts as Love is what catastrophically unfolds within American Teenage unlove scenarios (Larry Clark’s Kids as a pseudo-documentary example and American Pie series, well, a more documentary one!) Land’s chapter on love is entirely something else: Love can be a radical communication (a program for aborting the human race). These are no signs of Barthesian little diseases / angst / vertigos; because one immolates before communicating, sucked into a cyclone for which anthropomorphic desire is a restriction, lacerated open before it tries to be open based on his/her survival (organic, emotional, economic, etc.). Might give Land’s chapter a try; wonderful work in English but difficult for translation. Anyway, thank you Payam.

PS. Despite my ‘ambivalent’ aversion from Barthesian account of love; I can’t deny its sheer beauty treading through some passages. -- R

5:31 PM  
Blogger پيام يزدانجو مي نويسد:

Dear R., thanks for your precious commen, and what a coincidence! For once I translated it, I thought that this amourous discourse could not be a conversation, or even a communication. Of course, Barthes himself affrimed his discourse is not a dialogue, it is a long monologue, but I think the lover's discourse is an unsuccessful dialogue, a failed communication ...

6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous مي نويسد:

In Land’s account, Love too is an ultimate catastrophe but not in the way that Barthes demarcates (i.e. a failure but also at the same time, not a radical failure – not radically disastrous – so it has the power to self-maintain itself for another love, an auto-recovery towards another failure which is never lethal but mainly survivalist, fueling the next failure, as the next recovery from that failure.) For Land, love is radical communication; but a radical communication always exists at the outside for the anthropomorphic agencies, this means such a communication is inconclusive, it necessitates the terminus of the possibility of both the receiver (the beloved) and the sender (the lover) as well as the noise/signal flow (love). Such a communication is not an openness represented in an anthropomorphic / utilizable economy (the affordance of communication for both the receiver and the sender); it is an openness like being butchered, cracked and laid open, such a communication is catastrophic for all channel-regimes through which anthropomorphic communication is directed, economized and concluded. Here love is not a failure in communication but an incinerating communication whose tail has already been devoured by its fangs, communication loses its homeostatic principles and cannot fulfill the survival economy that it envelopes within itself any longer. Moloch, the sun god of Ammonites, ascends people to the Sun after immolating them ... this is the only communication that is possible with the Sun (love). Love overkills!

5:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous مي نويسد:

PS. in Land's account the signal-to-noise ratio collapses, who loves who? love loses its quiddity -- R

5:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous مي نويسد:

PPS. Land first unfolds what he means by ‘communication’, it is far away from what Barthes or other philosophers have in mind. Radical communication only recoils in horror. Kurtz (in Apocalypse Now) gives a clue, how long one can endure in such a communication before being torn into shreds? As I recommended Lovecraft is one the rarest entities who grasped such a communication. -- R.

6:06 AM  
Blogger Ø±Ø§ÙˆÛŒ قصه‌های عامه‌پسند مي نويسد:

سلام آقای یزدانجو ... یه پیشنهاد براتون دارم ! ... فونت ِ وبلاگتون رو تاهوما قرار بدین ، و کامنتهاتون رو از سایت ِ هالوسکان ... چون خوندن ِ فونت ِ تاهوما خیلی راحتتره و کامنت گذاشتن با هالوسکان هم همینطور ! ... ضمن ِ اینکه کسانی که عضو ِ بلاگر نباشند نمیتونن براتون کامنت ِ با مشخصات بذارن ... خداحافظ http://haloscan.com

12:14 PM  
Blogger پيام يزدانجو مي نويسد:

Dear R., you are right. But a point: as you know, Barhtes' poroject in this book is not to design a communicative system, his 'discourse' is not a vocal communication, the fragments don't constitute a systematic approach, only a discursive one. In fact, aside from his astonishing French, I think, Barthes' uniqeness is in his constellation of linguisctics, semiotics, psychoanalysis, philosophy, sociology, ... and, as you better, after all, this book is very Nietzchean in its spirit... Your comments make me glade. Thanks for all.

3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous مي نويسد:

A possible misunderstanding: I was not actually talking about the possible modus operandi for communication that Barthes diagrams in his book but the way he defines love. Plus, when I’m referring to radical communication, I’m not talking about communication in an economical sphere which presupposes the equation of communication = affordance (a term coined by J. J. Gibson). Completely agreed that Barthes uses some sort of un-signaling (i.e. not based on conclusive communication or in other words, variation of signal from noise towards correctitude of signal) communication, or in terms of Land’s book not a homeostatic communication but a communication through a thermo-spasm; in this book, Barthes, is like a catatonic hit by a solar tempest. If love is a possession (not regarding to the diametric discourse between possessed and possessor which is actually a medieval / Christian heresy first exploited by Cryl of Jerusalem to anthropomorphizing possession but possession as a free traffic zone of data), then this kind of spasmo-fragmentation in writing which Barthes follows is an excellent carrier to diagram love. “Did I tell you catatonics are easy to be possessed?” (Exorcist II: Legion). More on love, possession and demonographies of Cata- (catatonia, catastrophe, Katabasis) later.

Back to Nietzschean fragmentary writing (Barthes, Artaud, Michaux, Ceronetti and in recent years Shelley Jackson, et al): in fragmentary writing, systematic communication has no opportunity to germinate, the writing positively degenerates to ‘molecular epics’, ‘trajectories of escape’ evading being captured by the channel-regimes of systematic communication; this kind of molecular epic diverges in all direction before being accumulated, being economized through the capturing net of the textum, the platonic woven space. Thank you too Payam. – R.

8:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous مي نويسد:

Sorry for the typo: Cryl of Jerusalem ---> Cyril of Jerusalem

9:08 PM  
Blogger پيام يزدانجو مي نويسد:

Dear R., naturally agreed with your concept of cimmunication, I appreciate your analysis. I don't think that your comment is a modus operandi, as love itself is not so (just a modus vivendi)! Here, it seems to me, the indication to mideaval/catholic acts properly -- Cyril of Jerusalem, and John of Ruysbroeck maybe another one ...

12:02 AM  
Blogger پيام يزدانجو مي نويسد:

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous مي نويسد:

Thanks Payam, well, I’m not sure Love is a modus vivendi, an act of libban, a way of living, a peaceful coexistence. Modus Vivendi too is a Christian thing inseparable from the doctrine of eternal progression or apotheosis. Each entity should afford other entities (the openness can only be reached through the mutual economical affordance between entities), but cannot be open to them, radical openness emerges in the laceration, the utter crack-down of capacity. However, modus vivendi maintains an economical all together (a coexistence based on a dynamic but fully monitored affordance between entities) through which every way of living, every participation is an act of incapacitation (coming into an obligatory agreement with the capacity if an entity craves for survival), an investment in survival economy or platonic participation (methexis). The peaceful coexistence of modus vivendi or the affordance-based participation (based on the capacity to handle their openness not unfolding this openness) is a guarantee for the survival each entity and the dynamism of the economical methexis, this obligatory peaceful all together. "We shall become Sons by participation (methexis)" (Cyril of Alexandria); modus vivendi appropriates life towards survival (living), an economical communication with life through affordance; Christianity directs survival as a means towards unity, controllable participation with sons (others) to become Son which directly leads panorama to the Father, return to the economy of Father, unity with the patriarch. In love this capacity (which maintains and assembles this peaceful coexistence, way of living as an economical appropriation of life) is not incapacitated but sabotaged; capacity begins to leak out.


In Morocco there is proverb, Love will drive you mad, if you are truly in love and not mad, you are a walking dead. In Moroccan folklore, Aisha Qadisha (Ghedieseh) is a demon of some kind, a demon of love much based on the early Assyrian panorama that a human is a traffic zone of demons (xeno-chemical data from the outside) or Axis of Evil-against-Evil. Aisha Qadisha is one of the most popular and fearsome Jinniya (female Jinn) in Moroccan folklore; beliefs and rituals for Aisha have been continued to the 21st century. She is both a hunter and a healer, sometimes appearing as a beautiful (irresistibly seductive) woman and sometimes as a Hag. When she possesses a man, she does not take over the new host (possessing in a christen sense which can be exorcised) but she opens the man to the storm of incoming Jnun and Jinns, demons, and sorcerous particles of all kind; making the man a traffic zone of cosmodromic data. This is why she is feared. And she never leave, she always resides in the man to guarantee his total openness which is not always pleasant. According to Moroccans, the only way to feel comfortable with Aisha (the new partner / lover) is participating with her especially through passionate and wild music rites, any attempt to control this demoness is dangerous. Those who remember the end credits of Cronenberg’s Naked Lunch, may remember the acknowledgment to the master musicians of Jajouka who perform music rites for men possessed (opened) by Aisha (also see Aisha and the role of music in the Hamadsha). And you know that female Jinn (Jinniya) in early Arabic folklore never travel alone but in pack (much like the packs that Deleuze and Guattari describe), this is why they are called Jnun, a plural name for female Jinns. When an anthropomorphic entity is stormed by JNUN, a feminine tempest, it cannot afford them, the openness shifts from the secured horizon of being open to (which is inevitable constructed on capacity and affordance) to being cracked laid butchered open (i.e. being opened) or the openness from the Outside. The word Jnun, a maddening love is always accompanied by two elements: [1] being opened by the feminine side of the Outside (Barthes grasps this well), [2] losing the capacity to control the communication towards a systematic / maintainable / economically investable or profitable horizon (horismos = boundary; System does not end at its boundary but begins from the boundary to accommodate and appropriate the outside through capacity). -- R.

5:25 AM  
Blogger پيام يزدانجو مي نويسد:

Dear R., why did I say a 'modus vivendi'? For there is no unique practice of love, there are many love-style (as so many life-style). But, there is no original love-style -- all love story has been said. Now, we have some patterns and some practices, and all of these are contingencies. So, we can not help recognize this contingent entity -- Barhtes' fucus on 'un' ('a').
On 'affordance', certainly, I agree with you. Love is not an affordance, but an expenditure. It can be an economy, but of the kind has no demand, only a supply, thus it can n't belong to an libidinal economy (as Loyotard and Deleuze & Guattari argued), or even a sacrificial economy (in Batailles' terms), unless we konw the fact of its reversible entity: love is a reversed sacrifice, its devil's share is for one's own demon (Goethe's "we are our own demons"). Economy has no past, its presence is always in future, and love's presence is in past, it has no future (whether theologic promise or teleologic hope), it has no telos ...
Let me back to 'discourse', which is not a dialogue. Love seems an in-communication, a sender (Lover) whithout a reciever (beloved), or both in one (lover). For there is no 'common' context -- for lover is not blind, (s)he is deaf.

8:43 PM  
Blogger R مي نويسد:

Love: solar economy, overkill, inconclusive communication, The Legacy of the Damned, the cult of the exorbitant, etc.

9:52 PM  
Blogger R مي نويسد:

Love, by all means, is an anti-accumulative infernomatics. Its vectors are all un-manned.

9:54 PM  
Blogger پيام يزدانجو مي نويسد:

Evidently, love and communication are incommensurable, there is no such thing as communicative model for love. But, after all, we can find a homology: love can be a mass communication. Love, as mass media, has no response, none of them are interactive.
A difficulty reveals when we recognize the love is not a medium, it doesn't transmit any messege. In spite of the fact, love transmits many messege, which are all identical, and then can not be new messeges -- they are not 'news'. Or, the messeges love-as-medium transmits are too incommensurable, and incommunicable, thus they seem not decodable ones. Ultimately, love-as-medium has no more than a 'mass messege'.
But, why love has such an unsuccessfully praxis? For it has no theory. There is no dialectic between lover and beloved. Love is not a dialect, only an idiolect. Barthes is right, when he says, true love stories are failed loves, failure narratives -- the successful, satisfied love has no narrative impulse, it has no narrative.

11:08 PM  
Blogger R مي نويسد:

Dear Payam,

Yes, again i should remind you that the communication I frequently refer to is not a signal-processing communication with a homeostatic signal-to-noise ratio (will discuss about this later). Yes, love evades this kind of communication you suggested; in love, the amount of noise always exceeds the signal; the signaling proportionalization (which is always corrected at any temporal period) that happens between signal and noise for transmitting the message and correcting it in each period of time to deliver the message to the receiver ‘is fully countermined and counter-balanced’ (keep in mind: ‘Deliver-ing’ is a kind of labour production in this case: not deliver as de-līberāre [i.e. to set free] but Accoucher) When noise exceeds the signal the channel (the accommodating regime of transmission) is overloaded and eventually collapses but not in the way that transmission is cut; the noise produces anomalies which are offtime, off-channel and offbeat: have you realized that the infernal helix of the Lover and the Beloved (or again the Lover) twisting around each other in ‘Love’ is a revolting offbeat dance both to the common music and the rest of dancers, the crowd. When Noise demonically possesses Signal, it doesn’t become absurd (this is the idiocy of propagandists who warn about this crisis of total absurdness when noise infests signal) but engineers a space which is an active cipher, a convoluted line swerving in all directions without hitting the target (the military term ‘Absolute dud’ [1] comes to mind), it triggers anomalies, new lines of communication which occur out of the channel, disloyal to the goal-oriented economy based on affordance and survival economy, external to the narrative line and the plot-textum which is always in ambush to hunt down a new narration, settle down and consolidate a new regime. This is why I suggested the term inferno-matics for love instead of informatics.

>>> Payam: But, why love has such an unsuccessfully praxis?


I guess you have already answered your question; success (bonus eventus) is fulfilled through an Aristotelian cycle of Plan-Do-Check-Action; each phase of this cycle requires a minimum accumulation of the material (resource), a holistic consolidation and mainly, above all, an exchangeability between phases but you/we discussed that Love is a manifestation of the solar excess, what is given not merely is un-wanted but also lethal; the amount of the solar energy that is given to an organic agency simultaneously injects survival to it and a Full Death, an overkill. This anti-accumulative infernomatics -- Love -- cannot be trapped by exchangeability as it escapes any economic equivalent or economic symmetry that is constitutive of exchangeability. When this exchangeability is introduced to its terminus, the cycle of success [2] -- whose ‘economical / appropriated dynamism’ is guaranteed by the exchangeability between its elements -- ceases to recur and refine itself towards a profitable telos, or in other words, it fails to con-solidate a success.

Moreover, Love is the diversion (both in terms of Subversion and Incapacitation to fulfill their tasks) of all the elements which exist in this cycle both by the virtue of their exchangeability and their independent presence: Plan is undermined by a sinister incertitude in Lovee; Do and Action which involve organization and subjectivity are sabotaged from within (Love is a possession beyond the diametric discourse of the possessor and the possessed); “who did this?” matters no more, or a little. Check or Management come under the heavy blitzkrieg of the demonic participation between the lover and the beloved (or the double-lover), a participation that triggers anomalies, awakens potentials which are unknown to the managerial program of directorship which has already been mapped and defined according to the bonus eventus or success both at each phase of cycle and at its end.

[1] A term coined for an expensive high-tech nuclear ICBM (Inter-continental Ballistic Missile) which explodes before it hits the pre-programmed target.

[2] The Cycle of Success or The Wheel of Fortune as it was called in ancient Greek culture and during medieval time, corresponding to the unificatory Aristotelian panorama of the Rotation of the Elements)

3:52 AM  
Blogger پيام يزدانجو مي نويسد:

Dear Reza,
I think, finally, we have come to an agreement on the related concepts of communication or informatics. Also, we argued about economy, and as we know, the love economy (your infernomathics or my infertiliology) did not base on a common data processing. Thus, this otherwise ecstasic economy has no noraml data base. In fact, it has no base, only a flux of floating data ...
Now, let us follow a Nietzchean line. Take the love economy as a kind of the will-to-power: a will-to-possess. Lover (and I insist on him/her, not on the other illuminative side of the dilemma), take the love as authority: lover is an 'author' (no beloved has written a love story -- and if (s)he did?), who will write his/her will on a beloved book.
Is this economy an empowerment -- when the lover wants to possess the beloved? Apparently, yes. But love story has a horrible antagonist: seduction. Seduction is satanic side of the drama. Love in itself may seem a paradox, but its narrative, its story is a doxa. The love economy, here as every orthodox economy, would base on 'production' and, as Baudrillard brilliantly explained, seduction supersedes production: love is a 'preduction'. So, the lover never knows when (s)he has powerfully practiced, when the will-to-possess has been the will-to-possess -- (s)he never knows whether (s)he is possessing or being possessed ...

6:31 PM  
Blogger پيام يزدانجو مي نويسد:

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:32 PM  
Blogger R مي نويسد:

Dear Payam, apparently plagued by some kind of ancient flu, normal organic activities reached minimum status so I’ll get back to you in the next few days.

for now, yes seduction is also another pivotal (and potential for our discussion) topic but all love stories are not involved seduction, sometimes the excess reaches a level that it takes a vertical down-fall (without being introduced to anomalies that seduction makes out of this excess) to Avernus. For some changes in taste and pitching this discussion to a higher level of internal agitation, let me mention a few examples:

The Piano Teacher (based on a novel with the same title); He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not; Le Necrophile (Wittkop), etc.

And some anomalies: Romance-X, Afterhuman (M. Cross), Razor Wire Pubic Hair (C. Mellick), etc.

6:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<<< صفحه ی اصلی

:: نقل نوشته ها مجاز و انتشار آن ها منوط به اجازه ی نويسنده است ::