Lubricating the finite

Orbiting the center is the periphery, or so it is assumed. Psychostructurally, culturally, economically, etc. a finite Subject (§) must negate the abounding brambles. Clearing negation from lack, Hegel averred “Thinking is, indeed, essentially the negation of that which is before us.” That which is before subjective-reflective consciousness is also after it. In other words, worlds constantly close upon, make demands of, and parade entities incessantly around the Subject. Worlds, environs, arounds and circles us: Buildings, trees, shops, cups of tea, cigarettes, wine, crack cocaine, prison walls, police, classical music, rap, television, etc. Worlds environs do not withdraw, they incessantly embed and anchor, circle and surround. On the ground of Being-in-itself (Absolute/Infinity/Nothing) is the finite being-for-itself which cannot be-itself fully; otherwise it (the Subject) would be No-thing. Finitude can, however, have infinite features; it is deeply connected to infinitives, or – in syntax – subjects without objects. And these infinitives – verbs without direct objects – (‘we came to see’) reveal an opening of the finite into the infinite.  Explicating subjectivity is not the central thesis of this aTextual, tactile exegesis, however a digression is needed. The Subject arises from being-for-itself in a complex series of processes, starting with meta-awareness of being-for-itself-as-itself by violently being compelled towards climbing (or lowering) into the murky world of signs, signifiers, denials; the pleasure-principle is sublated into the reality-principle, whereby delayed gratifications, performative contouring, sociality and being-Other with Others develops after understanding/re-cognising oneself in the mirror.

Withdrawal (Heidegger*) implies moving from the Subject/Dasein. However, World/Environ is the greatest closeness of being-in-itself. It does not withdraw. The Subject’s finitude gives the illusion of its withdrawal, yet receding from one place to the other, the Subject engages in placing. Whilst the Subject finitely engages with projects, itself as Other, Others and Other-objects, it opens through its placing into a Space. A Space is always already opening towards more openings. Trending against recursively situated finitude, Space reverses recursive looping. Multiple lines branch out from the placing of the Subject as it seeks for-itself a Space. Longing for Eden, lacking, craving, needing, pleading, shitting, eating, fucking and sucking, Subject’s placing is always disturbed by what next, not yet, could have been, why am ‘I’ here, etc. A Space opens a Time; timing is placing (“Time is the longest distance between two places.”
― Tennessee Williams, The Glass Menagerie) through a Space. Essentially the body of the for-itself is placing, situating itself subjectively in an object(I’ve); infinitives have no object, and are precursors to object-directed verbs. Questions arise from murky objectless Subjects. Where am ‘I’? Who am ‘I’? Why am ‘I’? Pretentious questions developed by academics? Or more ubiquitous phenomena experienced by even the most wilfully unthinking for-itself? Does a wilfully unthinking for-itself have an ‘I’? Are the masses, with their EastEnders, football, beer-drenched Superbowl weekends, etc. wilfully unthinking because thinking itself is an elite commodity? And can thinking-as-commodity be called thinking? What then are the haute bourgeois intelligentsia and their petit bourgeois groupies doing?

Tommy, Samson and a mask, 2000 Roger Ballen

Opening, the aperture, even a small fissure in stubborn psychostructural certitude allows the for-itself to, imbued with discourse and silence along with inter-Othering (being-Other with Others), is a placing (the body) opening to a Space, a Space that always has too much. This too much is uncanny. It is jamais vu. Often described as the opposite of déjà vu, jamais vu involves a sense of eeriness, alterity and uncanniness upon encountering a situation, despite ‘rationally knowing’ it as familiar. A remainder remains beyond, on and inside brute, abject facticity. ‘I’ am a placing, a situated actuation which is the for-itself on the ground of Being; Being is a plenitude so ineffable it is No-thingness. In short, through negation, not yet, no, you can’t, you mustn’t, don’t, never, impossible, etc. ‘I’ develop a subjective and reflective identity, an identity imbued with difference which opens to a Space. Carved from Being, ‘I’ am someThing in( yet not entirely confined to) a Space and a Time. This aSpace is infinite; ergo, it is aSpatial. Opening to the aSpace, ‘I’ grasp myself as a finite, precious negating fleshthought carving-carved from Being; ‘I’ the placing, a Thing, the Thing. All around ‘I’ are ‘(k)nots’ and these are gaps, fissures, moments of jamais vu, disjoints, uncanny, alter- sublime/abjections, etc. 

Temporality is the Subject’s inability to fully be present as being-in-itself. For if ‘I’ was Being fully there would be no Time. aSpace and aTime are intra-related intimates. aTime opens the finite Subject towards its death, its pre-birth, its Dasein. The Subject is sort of an Event. Under conditions of globally nebulous insularity coupled with signifying losses (hyper-digitalisation and globalisation), the Subject oscillates between ‘Fuck Off’ and ‘Fear of Missing Out.’ Insecurity reigns supreme for horrified for-themselves without placing beyond its place into aSpace and aTime. Cosmological, bohemian, unconventional, affective psychocriticism off-centers the for-itself to open beyond its parochial, provincial placing and into aSpace and aTime; ‘deep time’ and ‘deep space’ are both metaphors and realities necessary for elastically expanding direly shrivelled for-themselves. Meditatively gathering, flinging and un-comforting itself, the for-itself can find new ethical dimension. Eventually even subjective and reflective consciousness begins to have features of aSpace and aTime, these features could be called aSubject. For-itself as a placing moves through aSpace always ‘towards’ and ‘from’ a Space and in aTime towards and from a Time. Historically, structurally situated, psychocriticism is an attempt at ontological interrogations, psychogenesis, ethical reflectivity within  finitude that is enveloped by an always-already World and in aSpace and aTime. Cosmologically conscious, yet without affectations of ‘enlightenment’, it is a hell of process of process. Constantly Minding and re-Minding Subject’s presence and placing of aSpace and aTime, multiple infinities arise. aSubject has features of meditation, in that it decreases thought-entity friction, lubricates finitude toward the (w)hole of infinities and ameliorates univocal, closures. Engaging (in (thinking) (alterity) is last bastion against neofascist finitude. 

One comment

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