Rigor Regression

Now, we always seek  intervention, interevention is like a fundamental human or probably sentient trait. I am not sure if it si related to power. But in any case, we all want to do something — or even if we don’t, then there is still the question of what would you do. So intervention is a fascinating question — it feels very fundamental.

I just realized that intervention is unvaoidable, in a sense, what we’ve been calling “targetting” is unavoidable as well. But there is a sense of a regression in intervention. Now, … tropically, I mean, clarifying my intentions by referring to some big book of philosophical tropes, we are thinkig about a regression of rigor as the way in which intellectualism and the prehistoric seem to converge or proceed in the same direction. I wondered if philosophers weren “professionally non-pragmatic”…

But rigor — we spoke about rigor, that is only the first degree of regression. I mean, in the ordinary world, we feel things to be at hand, and we feel that we are able to use them. Rigor is a kind of regression, it speaks of our preference for a kind of targetting, our seeking of a precisely targetted point. In fact, in a later essay I pointed out that we were really about rigor, which means we were seeking that targetting, which seems yet another layer of regression. We seek that which would give us a singleness of purpose, which is itself a seeking. The infinite loop of interventional demands.

I’ve been reading the Heart of Darkness still, and the strategy of “random points of entry” works great — I have the book as a text file — it’s about 3600 lines long, so jumping to a random line, and starting to read from there is what I’ve been doing. The premise of that book is quite cool. Everything is in ruins, and this ruins leads to a kind of regression — I mean, being in ruins means that one can no longer target, one can no longer behave correctly, and one begins to fall down the bottomless (well… I’m being grandiose here) well of targetting.

Certain scenes stand out and seem to make sense, let me just give them as a kind of “glossary”:

“Cipher” — Conrad thought that the book he found was annotated in cipher — it was actually Russian. But the idea is that cipher speaks of the possibility of breaking that code, it conceives of a point of targetting and intervention.

“The City of Darkness” — This is in like the final line of the book, when the fellows on the boat look upstream and see how the river seems to lead into a city of immense darkness. They are talking, then, about a city of ruins, a city where one can no longer intervene, or where intervention takes place in darkness: a breakdown that leads to a regression.

— But the premise of the Heart of Darkness is that there are all these scenes of people confronting this regression, this ruin, in different ways. They all look towards the same thing, basically. It’s like that movie, The Seventh Seal, where each of the characters confront death, as if in an allegory: some approach it stoically, others back away, the punch line was that there was one who welcomed it. The same thing can be said of the Heart of Darkness, where each person deals with the loss of … targets .. in different ways. The brickmaker starts networking. The manager forms this sort of dark alliance with the jungle. Kurtz… I’m not sure .. he seems to become it or to merge with it. The women reach out for it. And Marlow keeps his sanity by focusing on the mechanics.

What lies at the bottom of this plunge into darkness — this seeking of seeking of seeking of …?

Advertisements

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s