"The touch is not just a touch, a felt, a score, much less a manipulator, but rather it is to restore proximity to the other, to remove the distance that separates us from returning to subjectivity: to place it back in-the-world.
The touch does not drink, do not cling, does not catch or require other passive activity, slides on the edge of another, sets, making it appear as the displacement of runs, giving a small scale, into the world and giving the boundary that marks the figure, separates and unites the world again. The touch does not take possession, on the contrary, free otherness, relaxes, the distended. It puts us in contact with the other but without reducing our corporeality or perception, leaving him to inhabit his own otherness.
The touch reminds us that we can return to blindness. (...) We found that live forever in the absence, in what we're missing pet, as necessary to be cherished. " GG
Grammar of the media (unpublished)
"Here, the truth, to be a writer in earnest must be doing something else completely different." CD
Botero (2006)
"The scene, while accurately describing the air of conspiracy, the Upper Room, where complex plot threads weave a subtle between texts, institutions, thoughts, and elective affinities." Carlos Astrada
GD (2004)
To begin, we will continue making friends. And to do what best for inviting us to start a story.
Not long ago, in a hallway of the university, someone, perhaps without deliberate bad faith, citing the possibility disqualified (to make appointment) to a test published in this journal. The character in question had not read the essay. His opinion was related directly to the magazine, which was challenging for his "little scientific nature" (to appeal to the uncertain adventure of the trial) and because it actually is: "a magazine by friends" (in logic disqualifying: for lack of a refereeing authorized, authorized or unauthorized presence, justifying absences). But what is worse, making the same authority as the ultimate guarantee of the scenarios outlined in the trial.
These two attributes, which were brought to the magazine as birth defects, in the opinion of this jury to remain anonymous (Not because the subject of this statement lacks a proper name, but because the court answers rather a logic through which the subject is spoken) - should be assumed guilty and vivid manner. And before preparing these words (whose fate was to be pronounced at the generous invitation of the authorities, the UNS) had no better idea to admit that aseptic, sterile descriptive trial as a damning verdict has the force of law, provided from it, not to reject the indictment nor to support an apology, but rather to test the hypothesis presented (ie a presentation) the same thing but differently. And we did not to think hard not to give right away, as Walsh would say, with the next key: for us, guilty, these "defects" result in affection, to the extent that they become the experiential core of policy commitment imagined community around the magazine. Hence
may be appropriate to recognize from the outset, and bluntly: guilty, but not culpable. We recognize themselves in the guilt that is the cost to be paid (in foreign currency) at the time to think a magazine like the meeting place of a coordinated community on a policy of friendship, a place that works, if you will, effectively as a practice of self care is, of course is also a caring for others. However, part of a magazine made by friends, "involves taking a double risk: because at the same time that each one rests on the coherence of thinking, the intellectual coherence of the community, it also exposes to severe criticism, coming from the same group, can not be unheard indifferently, which allows not incur the Cenacle hypocrites whispers closed because a magazine is not made by friends and speculation disingenuous secret: you think what is said , we say what we think. Guilty
the blame for the friendship and guilt of the trial. Ie we are also guilty of treating thinking about the framework of an area in which the texts, textiles, relate and affect each other, without being subjected to the impositions and exclusions of the police disciplinary and without the abrupt presence of an arbitration to determine a rule of law as weak as miserable. In any case, we are guilty (even those who have studied in this sacred enclosure) of raising the hard way and chosen the wind piled us. Anyway, here we are guilty and crowded.
But watch the lice, not to believe that these words nests misguided idea that, as in turning Borges, joins us not love but fear. Not so. When pressed in a community we are planning on a love experience. We are thinking (many of you know because they have racked but rewarding arid sands of philological research) that the origin of the community lies the munus, the gift, what occurs unexpectedly, as a miracle, and without waiting for payment or profit. We refer therefore to a community whose logic does not distribute and guilt in relation to their degree of impunity because it is impossible to admit to the scriptures a different way of life if not provided submitting them to the utilitarianism of his "objective" criteria . I speak, on the contrary, a community which she refuses to reduce reality to a kind of nature given (only intelligible as an object y sólo apta para la descripción) porque prefiere asumirlo como un proceso de transformaciones y de pérdidas en el que ella misma es uno de sus avatares (y no un “más allá” desde donde afloran, verticales, los dictámenes).
En este sentido, esta comunidad imaginada aparece hoy, nuevamente, materializada en este cuerpo de textos que son acaso “simple y sencillamente” una instancia más de esa comunidad, de esa dación recíproca constituida por incansables diálogos, encuentros, lecturas, relecturas y también –por qué no decirlo– por lúcidas u opacas pero siempre encendidas discusiones compartidas alrededor de una rueda de mates con palitos o de un generoso grilled with red wine or a classroom dialogue agitated suspended.
there then here (which for many is a nightmare and a small miracle for us) a new coffin. And from him, trying to avoid superstition, only say what Spinoza taught: do not know what a body can do: we only know that his being in line with its power. And we do not see a story that started to impose limits or restrictions on the event of his experience. Guilty
effectively because there is a body. A body whose power (guilty) lies in the desire to be recognized in the terms of that kind of touch donated an elective affinity is not restricted to their content (on the other hand, heterogeneous undeniable) but because of his willingness to take writing as experienced as the place of risk, experimentation and transformation from which subjectivity can no longer return identical to themselves.
In short, blame and crowded, here we are gathered in a body of texts materialize, if only partially, a community that has no interest whatsoever about sacrificing defined by mere opposition to the logic that dictate their fault. Rather prefer to imagine themselves in the hard desire loving production of a difference. Difference that may or may not eventually materialize into a body of texts like this, but undoubtedly occurs, and behold the miraculous of it, "in each of those we are part of the small countries carried out by this sort of imagined community as a policy of friendship.
Moreover, we do not know from this page should induce some secret / forced continuity between the texts gathered here. Maybe post a thread, instead of circumventing the "threat" of discontinuity, will help pinpoint more than actually exists between them.
As the plurality of propositions and concerns that the reading of the textual body does this, we can only recognize it as a healthy invaluable and generous gift. The truth is that during these five years, which determine the course of the review, we found, perhaps a little adrift from the experience, with the possibility (Capacity?) to recognize, in the case of difference, a policy of friendship under power behind damning. We have seen, because we recognized that sometimes involved mechanically dresser, weak and ultimately pointless logic uncritical Manichean discourse that crushes the complexity of the event and ends erased in the common place of prosecution mechanical and dull and useless (from ) rating from ad hominem arguments. Already
: our belief (about the struggle of classes, planned misery that is pushed to much of society equally unpunished processes carried out under successive military dictatorships and economic under the dictatorship imposed by successive democratic masks the assertion of the "lesser evil", or regarding the need for structural transformation of a society that excludes from the unequal distribution of wealth) remains intact. If something has changed is the mindset from them. We have chosen to abandon a position pedantic, not without some messianic tinge, from which more than once utter a speech that they took on the value of the claim when he pointed out just the place common (effects) of this repressive mechanism. And not because we stopped believing in the value of the claim, but because we have stopped believing that we can change something without first being able to transform ourselves through our experiences, our own praxis.
In effect, despite their apparent heterogeneity, which is evident in this body is an insistence: the core of this body-reflexive text is-still-politics. The ways in which she goes through and permeates and relates to the philosophy, aesthetics, literature and history. Only that in every text, and willing to fulfill ideological tasks (which are intended to contribute to at least crack the metal plate of the dominant culture), it is evident the passionate desire to make a difference in the search for new meanings, ie, the desire to examine the relationships between text and politics in a new way, trying put in crisis the ways in which the meaning of the text is subjugated through subtle but effective cultural naturalization processes. But what is equally or more important, is the policy of a constitutively in these tests: it is in the sense that each one of them refuses to recognize it (a policy) as an externality or as a mere content pursuant to understand (include spatial sense of the word), is say, assuming the policy and experience that can evade the no writing precisely because it occurs also in and through them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment