there is something i am trying to say.
i could start it around amy hollywood: hysterical, heretical women… speaking, over-speaking and hyper-signifying.
i could start it with marx as well, the gaping empty proletariat upon which history was to be made, to be written.
i could work it from badiou’s void, from heidegger’s nothing, lacan’s lack…
kierkegaard’s don juan.
yes, now i’ve hit it.
or they have.
or they’d like to…
irigaray, though i don’t agree with her bases, begins these rounds. the open, the clearing, the forgotten void is that from which all thinking comes and fills and endlessly forgets. she could have gone further. but she didn’t have to as marx, badiou, heidegger, lacan… they had already gone the distance.
what distance? what’s the point?
what we’ve looked at as an obsession with death, with violent clearings, with absence, lack and emptiness is, well… we’ve been here before
and again i’m just circling.
coming up empty handed…
what about sublimation? kristeva’s creativity?
yes, this sounds right for the moment: filling the void, it is, like christianity in nietzsche in zupancic
hyperspeak. not the panacea, the numbing, but its opposite. the influx of joy, passion, meaning and making.
we don’t call it hyperdrive any more, so what… networking?
is this social networking? making links to fill time and space?
yes, maybe. and what is specific about the way that is male, or at least not female is the insemination. the dispersal into what appears to be nothing. and certainly isn’t (if it is woman) and is (if it is lacan’s real, heidegger’s nothing)
now, now we are getting no.where.