The Time of Development

I made a big mistake two posts ago — I thought that temporal distortions of experience (“gravity wells) came from close logical analysis. This is wrong, temporal effects in fact begin, I will claim, precisely when something is no longer readable, at that point another sort of logic takes over. … this is not really a radical new development, in the sense that, if I were to hypothetically point this out to myself in the past, my past self would have slapped his forehead, but at the same time I feel it helps us advance.

In the last note we were basically talking about negation. But negation is composed of two parts: the negating of what exists and an independent life. We’ve long known that negation was different from rebellion, rebellion is simply moving from one thing to its opposite, negation is the avoidance of both terms. In this case, negation can only be something that is, so to speak, set free so that it can take on a life of its own. For example, though this may be — or better, end up being — a bad example, the “rocky orb feeling” we spoke of last time was, I took care to say, neither cynical nor uplifting. The entire note was, oddly enough, about how it could not be developed, and yet here we are referring to it again. (Add this to the fact that I have here, as a discarded draft, a note I wrote in the interim — actually a very uplifting one — about how I feel I no longer have anything to say, no experiences to share!) There is the paradoxical sense that only that which cannot be developed can, well, develop, “by itself”. There was a passage that I ended up deleting from the last note which now seems relevant — it was an introduction or a kind of apology to the reader, basically stating that “I can no longer claim not to waste your time”. I ended up cutting it because, well, I felt like it was a waste of time, I feel like I’m long winded enough without apologizing — I felt like maybe that apology was implicit and that we could only try our best to develop things as rapidly as possible. But the passage no seems very relevant — it is saying that things are no longer certain — it’s referring to this time of development which has to take place beyond logical categories. So it’s kind of like asking permission to put forth some ideas which may not be promising. The point here is that a lot can happen “about nothing”, that is, about something that can’t be logically developed, about a “logical nothing” or structural nothing.

(Kafka’s infamous passage “the Truth of Sancho Panza” story is relevant here too — in that story, he speaks of Sancho “letting loose” the demon Don Quixote to wander around in the countryside — so this wandering is this time of development.)

There is certainly a happiness to being unable to talk about anything, the writer’s block experienced not when we are overcome by complexity but rather when we feel we’re about to enter into a realm that is yet unthought. This is definitely the feeling right now as we move, finally, out of our lingering structuralism — which is really the primary error plaguing the note two posts ago, this notion that negativity would be complex — out of our veiled structuralism towards a relationship with the negative that seems to have some yet unthought order of its own.



Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s