what if we are on the verge of reinventing auto-bio-graphy.
not even re-inventing, but venting, airing, exposing.
i’ve been reading corpus, by jean-luc nancy…
i’ve been reading. corpus.
bodies . corps . concentrations . mass . bodies .
there is so much to say that i can hardly speak for myself. quoting, then:
“freud’s most fascinating and perhaps (i say this without exaggerating) most decisive statement is in this posthumous note: psyche is ausgedehnt: weiss nichts davan. “the psyche’s extended: knows nothing about it.” -p 21
“it’s even more surprising, then, that a certain psychoanalytic discourse would seem to insist, while denying its object, on making the body “signify,” rather than flushing out significtion as something that always screens off the spacing of bodies. this kind of analysis ‘ectopizes’ (or ‘utopizes’) the body beyond-place: it volitalizes it, indexing it to the incoporeality of sense. hence, it would seem, hysteria is instituted as exemplary: a body saturated with signification. and hence no more body… i would prefer to take hysteria as the body’s becoming totally parasitical upon the incorporeality of sense, to the point that it silences incorporeality, thereby showing, in its stead, a piece, a zone, of a-significance. (because ultimately we would have to know whether the hysteric is engaging mainly in translation and interpretation or in something contrary and much deeper, namely, a resolute blockage of the transmission of sense. discourse incarnate, or a blocking body: who doesn’t see that there is no hysteria without a blocking body?) -p 23
“all bodies are part of this breakthrough, of this departure of bodies in all bodies; which is why material freedom – matter as freedom – is not a freedom of gesture, still less of voluntary action, without also being the freedom of two shades of mica, of millions of dissimilar shelss, and of the indefinite extension of the principium individuationis, such that individuals in themselves never stop being in-dividuated, differing ever more from themselves, hence being ever more alike, interchangable with themselves but never reduced to substances, unless the substance, prior to sustaining something (self or other), comes to be exposed here: in the world.” -p 35
“completely astonished, Kazik discovered that he was condemned to a life of dragging his left foot slightly, that one of his eyes made out forms and colors with great difficulty… he learned that when someone says ‘that’s my fate,’ in fact he usually thinks of the pile of flesh he’s hauling around. Aharon Markus, the pharmacist, volunteered that mankind, having existed on this earth for millions of years, was perhaps the only creature alive still imperfectly adapted to his body, of which he was so often ashamed. and, as the pharmacist remarked on occasion, man might be said to naively await the next stage of evolution, when he and his body would be separated into two different creatures… it has to be noted that Neigel didn’t understand much of what was being said about a man’s relationship to his body: to be admitted into the SS, a candidate had to have perfect health; the filling of a single tooth was enough to disqualify the candidate.” 1) David Grossman, Voir ci-dessous: Amour, tranlated from the Hebrew by Judith Misrahi and Ami Barak, (Paris: Seuil, 1991). -p 51
“there’s nothing here to discourse about or communicate but bodies, bodies and bodies.” -p 57
“the very idea of ‘creation’ is the idea, or thought, of an originary absence of Idea, form, model, or preliminary tracing. And if the body is par excellence the thing created, if ‘created body’ is a tautology – or, rather, ‘created bodies,’ for the body is always in the plural – then the body is the plastic material of spacing, without form or Idea. It’s the very plasticity of expansion, extension, where existences take place. The image (that it thus is) has no link to either the idea or, in general, to the visible (and/or intelligible) ‘presentation’ of anything at all, the body’s not the image-of. But it’s the coming to presence, like an image coming on a movie or a TV screen – coming from nowhere behind the screen, being the spacing of this screen, existing as its extension – exposing, laying down this areality, not as an idea given to my own vision as a punctual subject (and still less as a mystery) but right at my eyes (my body) as their areality, themselves coming into this coming, spaced, spacing, themselves a screen – less ‘vision’ than video.” – p 63-65
i’m skipping, omitting, changing the form of the body. but it’s a start and for here and now that is enough.