Pompeii 2
[apeiron]
+ape iron (from first to last: human-e-volut/btion)
apeironymous
+apeironic
+apPap
+paPa eiros
+eiron
-/eireony
-/apeirony
chaosmosis.>>
from(j)ape2iron-
[eponymous rex + gutterbunny = linguano scatö]
ecology > ekelogy > echology +ium(+ium)+ium))
(a puking return in the language landscape).
(space: a) localized parameter ()
b) dot/object emerges as anaclysm
(erupteratologii preceded by eructation & double
reticulation of the noun to produce the indelible present of the verb, i.e., to puke
(ti pake).
c) dot/object sans verb; return of the noun, now crowned.)
it was a big white space [erasurrept errasest / sphacelated], devoid of all save for
the I that shat (on the mat w/ cat?) right in the middle of it (le mot blanc, la terre
noire, desertwhite).
isoluble / ghostainee
>.drub.>//ing.>//land.>
isolated gr#d.
lyseri[c]alization:
-chemicali
micalisthenic
nicotinertia
tiarami
amicrofiche
amicrofiche
chemicali-
]na: museo-lustro-gabba:na[
rectulation (,out of – circleared squarred).//
&how:
/.[+!]
[-?]/.
[Sein Sof]
e> pliquante /
mesocrates types white on black.
chalk on construction paper
"the gutter'd grids & mudflats on isle loan, sloughed hides skeinswap on my body
tablature Lethe, hung sacks making their own meniscus. Be careful with that, Johnny
Footbinder!"
In retorture:
Wiv kippahs as narsty inall fo' in wut Tobbar and Guibald ha' say'd, scupper'd wutnot ve haff ta tug 'n ve beardos 'n fold 'em up wut nawce.
chiffron_chiffrison (and all as cold lock'd scent, wintry resoluble)...
[I...I]
Who is Seratonin Artaud, the persecured?
/is he the Eonera of the Eraeon
of the reposing nud?
a chemicola bizzle flubble flatlining an institutional cage?
a jackhammering out of rhythm against the metromonetarynome of psychiatry?
a neo(n) Ugo Cerletti treatment for neon-convulsive therapy?
In times when the prescripto-pillicit does not take, dissolve gastrolight:
if one does not write with blood
one ought not write at all.
a pen must be sanguine, and so:
an injunction upon bloodless words.
what one may call a written exuberance,
the violence of joy
the ecstasy and euphoria of stylufacture!
-SArtaud is a paint-by-numbers clinical picture,
a eu+pho(r/n)ia + euphoronom.e
as the best sound frequency modulates.
O clinicaca clinicloaca-ca na na!
Open palm s(o)po(rifies)ts capsules o' Xanaxadu.
[ammunication]
m.bush.d, not [tilde-option] on notice::10er 4 voyce.
machinicunt +!/-! gasmasquerade as eurotic
-digitUR datasphere,
the free re-inscription of equipmental space (region) is not just another shifting of form,
not just another surmoulage. It is to take territory by its scruff and drive all the
"appropriate places for equipment in spaces" through the wall. How else could one
drive off a household assailant?
This will have been an anti-performative license. Be advised that all transmission via
oral conduits that open and/or close is strictly prohibited by the lysicological law. Would-
be performers of the [+!] project should govern themselves accordingly by the "ignotius
per ignotum; viva non voce" statute as laid out in the lysicological pedifesto. Failure to
remit non-oral reference to the project will be met with harsh and retributive action,
including the imposition on offenders of a bio-palimpsest that shall reveal, in corpus, the
most scarlet of letters.
[die noopoetry]
::(roll+)over a dekade in devo
lop
(mom+)ment(+um),
the Stimmungalese la-text pan-immolates.
Pure Rhetoraganda-/-/-
drips of cesium
tangentlemen poet shot dead after pinball incident
involving a free play verb hitting noun bumpers.
Will involve four levels of prophetic reading to unhitch the
bracketeering ostentatiously pre-installed,
post-approved,
going on, giving up, going bowling.
I am am I a cherished son in state bosom that they dis- and re-inter me in that
combination mausoleum library, a curious place, as it came too late, as it came too late
to Alexandre Dumas. In Abdominion (this dollar-patriot land of the intestine), in
abollocks (Milton invented the abyss, or uncovered it via Gk. abyssus), in abdiction
rather than malediction/maledi(c)ktat(e). A crooked enfilade.
A very crooked enfilade...we now enter the anti-DMZ:
[title bout in Tbilisi]
This lesson in doublets -
iota to jot
beldam to belladonna
crook to cross (a la Kruchenkross)
& briar to furze.
I have built an ensilage for neologeodesic words, a silography.
(that Ossetian lacks antipodes, but a good eanling, a cater-cousin).
tankroll / blown bullrings as convoys are topographically engrail'd.
One side hunting leopard
the other a dancing bear.
One side acceleration
the other a heavy claw.
this'n'that via the web(b)-flow of the inertnet. It don't move none, no, 2.0.
NO TO 2.0! Nuptialimonies PAID.
A Manifesto of Lysicology
Lysicology / Lysics / De Lysica
[Lysicology / Lysics. Def: a multilinear “floem” of post-surreal “lysic”, punctuated
by free-range neologisms, broken portmanteaus, puns, ASCIInterventions, and
acronymysticism. Not a bridge between langpo & vispo, but a brokerage of
schizolangue] Bands, ribbons, code-bulges, barreling, reversions, flips, switches,
denomenclaturization, elisions. That which is “lysine” in quality is said to aid in
decomposition, and so the “lysic” (rather than “lyric”) is a playful false cognate
and etymological aberration that would bolster the aims of an oncotextual /
schizographia design. To de-compose the composed.]
How are we to speak of de-composition (which is always also, to follow Deleuze
& Guattari, a re-composition)? How are we to consider something on the order of
poetic code decay, or perhaps to ponder poetic construction by means of
aberrant sine waves? “Lysic” means precisely this: to decompose, be this on the
order of local / minor decompositions or large-scale code-frame collapses. But to
decompose does not necessarily mean to retrace an existing composition back
through its process to its genesis, as if reversing the temporal sequence of
building. Rather, it is more like an abbauhaus, a de-structuring, but not on the
order of deconstruction (although there are some similarities).
When codes of a poetic or linguistic order are invoked, there may also
come to the fore a retinue of usual associations, be them on the order of the
semiotic stalemate in the communicative exchange between the sign and the
letter, or perhaps the signal-decay of indexical salience in the philosophy of
linguistic referentiality. But to tear from this, to form a depliant, we come closer to
something altogether different, a facet of a truly schizographic or onco-poetic
formation.
The “lysical” realm is populated with departures, inversions, and code
parsing. It is a space of unchained language, though it is not non-sense; rather, it
is its own sense and has its own unique logical rigour. It can engage with select
local code-formations or entire code-factions. It can (de/re) form code bulges,
barrels, and chains through a series of additions, subtractions, bends, “clipping”
(as in the case of freed prefixes and suffixes that may later be grafted to other
terms). As a mathematics, it is a dys-figure that can en-, de- and re-code itself.
De figura rerum. Both serious and ludic (among children, all play is serious), it
can flow, cut, or form a chain of discontinuous points. At times it can, to borrow
from Volkoff, cause cognitive or linguistic dissonance. It is the very anaclysm of
language that allows such lysics to be practiced, the eruptive and de-coding
element that is itself a creation rather than a cataclysm of complete linguistic
dissolution unto silence. But even this – this exposition – is just a primer, a
theoretical scaffolding, but also a retrospective exegesis.
The term “lysics” would imply, by the very largesse of the term, a kind of
methodology – a straightforward direction for the practical construction of poetry
with fidelity to the poetic theory. Perhaps even such an attempt at a method
would also succumb to the schizographic and anaclysmic ruptures of the very
poetics it undertakes to explain. Even strikethroughs that place terms and words
under erasure will not suffice, for all such acts will produce ever more metastatic
negation. It is, in some ways, a kind of pthisis bruiting throughout the excursus,
the threnody of language corrupted by its own codes.
Codework poetry operates by a series of proliferations and condensations
through the conduit of computer-specific languages in hybridization with non-
traditional poetics. What lysics proposes is the construction of the occult
machine, the computer in obsolescence, the very decay of code as the machines
break down. This is not to say that we are attempting to outmode those intrepid
ASCIInauts of invention, but rather that we are exploring the gala of ruin, what
that portrait of an apocalypse of language would look like via de/re-coding. We
do this through several means, and in this “ruin” of language we create anew,
escaping what Jameson calls the prisonhouse of language. That “carceral
continuum” inherent in codes succumbs to a virtual storming of its Bastille in a
kind of revel – vertiginous and bacchanalian. And, just as the effect of cancer on
the body, we use the code against itself, co-opting and pirating linguistic function
to effectively “trick” language into a wild growth beyond its usual parameters.
This is the graft – or, perhaps more in line with the etymological pedigree
of graphein, “grapht”. As per definition, graft comes in two colours: the first is
inducement of growth, and the other is the abuse of power resulting in gain.
“Graphting” entails textual surgery. The power of the poetic code is corrupted,
shifted into a new domain advantageous to metastatic creation, and it can only
be done through a forced inducement to outgrow its coded limits.
There have been several attempts of differing methods for the conjuration of
textual possibilities. The short story, “The Library of Babel” by Jorge Luis Borges
considers a vast library wherein are stored every permutation possibility for
books of uniform length (410 pages) with the 22 sacred orthographical
characters. Doubtless, Borges was influenced by Raymundus Lullus whose
“lullistic machine” produced an ars combinatoria of words with the use of three
wheels containing all the letters rotating on a central axis. This, averred Lullus,
would produce all the possible variations of text the human mind could ever
construct. This system would later be bastardized by Athanasius Kircher, and
would factor in some of the reasoning of Leibniz. Other such methods, from the
directly mechanical, such as the Babbage machine, to the somewhat inelegant
founder’s method of surrealism’s cut-up method, would also weigh in as possible
ways of creating textual variations. But in none of these methods is found the
very possibility, in a somewhat Bataillean sense, of the dissolution of language; a
loosely programmed mechanism for denaturing or decomposing language in
such a way as to make such a decomposition the very foundation for
composition. This inaugural and modest attempt in the foregoing could be called
our prima figura.
The Anaclysm of Textual Production
If metastasis is the fundamental principle of becoming, and if all creation is
ostensibly also a critique, what is its more puissant relation with Nietzsche’s
active/reactive force couplet? At every scene of a catastrophe, something always
turns up, something new is anastrophically discovered. Even in Heideggerean
parlance, any possibility is a covering over another, and so the un-covering
(usually by a violent razing) is the scene of both a building up and a taking down.
Critique, in the Nietzschean sense of creation, reveals the catabolic nature of any
preexisting state of affairs or stagnant field of ideas. What rises up with phoenix-
like power is the active from the reactive, the anaclysm of thought and of being.
And just as for Deleuze there cannot be a reterritorialization without a
complementary deterritorialization (taken as one single movement with two
effects, reminiscent perhaps of cytokinesis in a cell), it is the same with the
nature of critique and becoming. Recoding is always also a decoding of what the
new code replaces – if not a replacement of all the elements in that code, at least
the formal arrangement of its prior structure. Codes occur in chain-like structures,
and have bonds that are linguistically, socially, politically, and geographically
linked. Their individual units, which cannot exist without being already installed in
a chain of bonds, would be called codemes. Codemes must exist in a system of
interrelated and exo-related reference, and this is guaranteed by the chain
structure. The letter “A” can be isolated from the remainder of the alphabet, but it
still ostensibly refers to it, or else may refer to another signifying order of code
chains such as geometry, aesthetics, phonetics, etc. But this is not to say that the
letter “A” does not affirm its own difference or has its own meaning. For example,
a protein peptide chain is called as such because it is composed of smaller units
of bonded amino acids, but these bonds can make a veritable infinite number of
chains. An amino acid, unbonded, can exist per se, but its tendency is to bond. It
is the same at the molecular level, especially among atoms that do not have their
electron shells filled and so have a tendency to fill those shells through bonding
in the environment.
However, perhaps if considered with more precision, the “magic” of de/re-
coding actually possesses a “codeme” exchange of particulate code-elements
that are co-transferred or donated. A site that is decoded must first possess a
capacity for affective transformation, and the act of decoding-as-recoding must
exceed the resistance-factor of said site. If the de/re-coding occurs relatively
quickly, then the de/re-coding capacity for overcoming resistance will be
proportionately higher in that case than in another instance where the exchange
of codemes is slower due to a narrower relationship between the capacities of
affect and affectation. Also, changes in either the resistance-factor in site “x” and
the agent of de/re-coding “a” may also affect the rate of transformation.
Decoding, taken on its own, relies upon a capacity for negation or
translocation of existing codemes in site “x” that is higher than the resistance-
factor of the site. But to take decoding on its own, as a kind of in vitro
phenomenon, is impossible since decoding is synonymous with recoding. To
decode is to perform a substitution of codemes through addition, rearrangement,
or displacement. Removal by substitution, for example, automatically alters the
code chain, thereby reinscribing it in terms of its expression and function. A
geneticist can knock out a gene from a particular twist of helices, effectively
decoding the former code chain, but such an action recodes the chain insofar as
new bonds develop, and the overall genetic character of the organism is also
made to alter in accordance with the change (the recoding) of a particular code
chain. The annulment of one code chain is simultaneously the genesis of a new
one. We discover this in the deconstructive program in relation to text insofar as
the insertion, reinterpreting, appending or substitutive effects of deconstruction
upon a “stable” text results in the creation of a new text, another layer or register
that re(en)-codes the “original” text.
In the same way that decoding cannot exist in isolation beyond being an
abstract idea, recoding follows the same order. To re-code would mean that
there was once a code chain that pre-existed the act of re-coding. Simply put,
one cannot recode if there is not a code chain in place within which the recoding
can occur.
Codemes from either the already coded chain or the agent of de/re-coding
have the possibility of trading off. For example, if we consider the way in which a
street gang can recode the relationship to urban geographical space, we find that
the gang can borrow certain codemes from the code chain “property rights”. In
this way, a gang can be said to feel a property entitlement to the area they have
reinscribe and defend without a) owning any property in the formerly encoded
traditional sense as guaranteed by a nation’s system of law (the code frame), b)
defense and territorial expansion nascently inherent within the existing code
chain is borrowed (appointing gang members to substitute for the role of police,
territorial expansion hitched on a code chain of inter-gang conquests rather than
urban sprawl, etc), and; c) a sense of community and belonging due to a
consensus in values and goals. In the case of the gang, the code chains are
reinscribed, but are in many ways borrowed codemes from the code chain they
have de/re-coded.
When it comes to de/re-coding, there is never an equilibrium. The act of
de/re-coding depends on an anaclysm, a degree of metastasis and apoptosis. It
is the proportional difference between de/re-coding and the site or object to be
de/re-coded that determines the capacity to be affected, and to what extent.
Code frames contain a complex series of interrelated code chains. This
provides the expressible “structure” of code chains taken as a larger unity. Code
frames are a means of increasing order and resisting de/re-coding by aligning the
code chains into rigid signifying patterns. However, code frames are no more
immune to transformation and de/re-coding than is the genetic structure of a
body to cancer due to internal or external influences. Code frames are idealized
unities to protect against the potential for de/re-coding. Despite the arrangement
of code chains to best protect against alteration, it is akin to building a dam with
poor grade materials. The bigger the frame, the more resistant it may be to
alteration, but the code chains it consists of are individually less resistant, and at
times it only takes one proverbial “weak link” in a chain to spur a widespread,
metastatic de/re-coding event. Within a code frame, there can be structural
anomalies that may help or hinder its overall integrity, areas where there is
“bunching”, overlayering, and, conversely, stress, resource scarcity, and atrophy.
Code frames may over-respond to the threat of invasion by arranging tighter and
more numerous code chains that, by their strong resonance, may produce “code
bulges”. These bulges may be constructed at the risk of shifting code chain
resources from other zones, making those zones deficient, more permeable, and
susceptible to a potential de/re-coding event. For example, if too much resource
investment is given the philosophy of linguistic reference, and more practitioners
are allocated to promote and defend such a theory against anticipated objections
on the front-end, then that may mean less defensibility if the same code frame of
that philosophy were questioned on the validity of semantic rules in general on
the back end.
Bulges are not the only concern when it comes to code frames. Firstly,
code frames demarcate their zones rigidly and so do not communicate as easily
with neighbouring frames. Code frames, tightly bound up with code chains, do
not have very permeable membranes. Secondly, they don’t alter or transition
easily on their own given the fact that the energy required to do so would also
mean a considerable alteration in either the arrangement of code chains or a
change in the individual codemes themselves. Lastly, despite their apoptotic
quality of resisting de/re-coding event threats, some code chains are arranged in
what can be called hollow code bubbles. Code bubbles have the appearance of
impenetrability, but a major portion of the code chains are stitched together as a
surface, and if that surface breaks, it reveals a vulnerable space wherein a de/re-
coding event could more easily take place and cause more rapid alteration.
A Process Entry for Lysicology
If we are to consider a "method" at all in the construction of a lysicological
project, it should perhaps fall under certain prerequisites such as having some
minor (but not expert) limberness in the ability to be trans-linguistic, polyglot, and
even polychromatic in the arrangement (dispositio) of fragments - a sort of
recombinant series of monstrous neologisms. It would be difficult indeed to
marshal these "affects" of language's de-composition as being a movement
proper with all the largesse that is associated with the term. Of course, even the
monstrous has its etymological lineage to demonstration (to de-monster-ate).
The lysic will borrow from some of the central tenets of both Wyndham
Lewis' vorticism and Alfred Jarry's 'Pataphysics. That is to say, productive (anti-
dialectical) inversions blend with the vorticist method in part. Owing to my own
obsession with linguistic variation outside the domain of VisPo and LangPo
proper, I take aim at the etymological root of words to uncover the hidden lexical
connections between words in order to disrupt them, force new combinations,
cross-breed, or push certain connective tissues between words to their
exaggerated conclusion. Decomposition has to occur at the very site of every
word, applying the lysical rather than lyrical function behind the word itself as its
generative motor. The word and its components are vitalist, but they are
ravenously so, like a derecho.
My initial inspiration, despite my overweening obsession with etymology
and a rank fascination with the history of words, was in being introduced to the
code poetry of Mezangelle and the intrepid explorations of those like Vuk Cosic
and Alan Sondheim. As is my habit, I long pondered the very word "code" and
explored its variations in language, thus coming to a notion (pirated from Deleuze
and Guattari) that I dubbed de/re-coding. Codes have flips and reversals, and
can be corrupted against itself: this was the genesis of a de-composition that
was, like Nietzsche's critique-as-creation, itself a composition. My initial attempts
were slightly emulative, and I produced a series of "code" poems in dedication to
the code poetry movement (published by Jukka-Pekka Kervinen's wonderful site,
forward/text). By the time I had firmed up the "method", I tapped a creative lit-
aphasic poet by the name of Matina Stamatakis, and we set to work on a book-
sized collaboration entitled simply [+!], of which selections have been appearing
here and there. From this point, it was only a matter of chance and time that I
would encounter another poet who was diligently looking to disrupt and disgorge
the contents of language, John Moore Williams - whose i discover i is an android
explored the intrinsic effects of consciousness in relation to language and
homunculi. As golems and cyborgs, androids and alchemical matters are another
obsession of mine, this set the tone for my interview of him for Ditch Poetry, run
by John C. Goodman. Owing to our craven fascination for "theory", all the
conditions were in place to dive into the sandbox and start inventing, pushing,
and composing.
Granted, this kind of work is not easy to digest, and is a wide departure
from more "straight-talking" poetry. We could verily be accused of being
pretentious, impenetrable, making art for art's sake. But this is our cacoethes
scribendi, our graphomaniacal urge. Many people close to me claim with
exasperation that they "don't get" the work, nor see how it is poetry. Fair enough.
For my part, I see nothing pretentious in an act of play and experimentation, but
reception is an entirely different matter. I don't perceive ourselves as elitist in our
production, and it is not as though my aim is to prove intelligence by being
abstruse and obscure. I don't think work like this is somehow "better" than
different types of poetry either - it is just a different perspective, a different taste,
and abides by the structure of play. I am guided by the perennial maxim, "why
not?" The work is fun, and not intended to browbeat others with some phantom
image of intellectualizing. Lysic is free of bombast, and its sole purpose is to
engage in serious linguistic play in order to create new connections, new "lines of
flight". Lysic, in the way that we have performed it here, puts one in a kind of
mood or mode, a trance-like state in relation to language - it is a different way of
speaking. It is a language of alterity, yet installed within language itself, like being
a nomad or an exile traveling within the city walls.
Another fount of inspiration for this kind of work emerged when I was
commissioned to write an essay for the Metalogos ensemble. Daring to go
beyond the word itself were figures like Christian Bok, Steve McCaffery, W. Mark
Sutherland, Sylvia Ptak and Francesca Vivenza (among others). In terms of
recombinant variations, Bok's Bibliomechanics was key, reminiscent of Raymond
Lully and Jorge Luis Borges' "Library of Babel."
We must here open up on the question of economy and memory,
suspending for a time the problem of "manifesto". I have chosen to name this the
second attempt since I have written on this before. This is not to say that I was or
am dissatisfied with the first attempt, but that there is more to say and this is my
second outing to make my explanations and decide on different problems,
different questions. At the very center, wherever we may erroneously choose to
locate it, would be the essential question of decomposition. This, of course,
signals us to the baser question of what it means to compose, what a
composition "is" in its implication and sense, and if de-composition is merely a
negation or something other entirely.
Perhaps lurking at this nebulous center of (de)composition will be two
operators or guides that may ferry us to a provisional answer: the economy of
words (and poetics at large) as well as their "memory" (mine, yours, theirs, the
lexical, institutional, semantic, sociological, historical etc). We know that the
assigned title of one who composes is "composer" (identical in appearance to the
old French), but also has an oblique link to the Latin "componere" - or,
"component. The variegation of light passing through a prism is broken down into
its component parts, these components etymologically meaning "a putting
together", an arrangement, an ordering - according to Form, as much in the
Platonic sense perhaps as well as the less definitionally loaded derivatives in the
aesthetic understanding of composition. If de-composition were merely the
negation, then this putting-together would be a pulling-apart, a disorganizing,
disordering, derangement (this, of course, entails a "throwing" into confusion as if
it were a target whereas a pulling is centered on a subject that does the pulling,
most likely "toward itself"). To decompose carries the meaning of "decay" since
the prefix "de-" denotes a reversal. It also means simplification into smaller
constituent parts. The antonym of decaying would be growth, and growth calls to
mind something that becomes larger since it is the merger of smaller parts into
an organized whole. In Aristotelian terms, the opposition is expressed as
generation and corruption.
But we must linger on decay, its loam. Decay is what generally occurs to
something already dead, but should we decide to de-compose a composition,
has the composition already succumbed to its own demise? If so, then we are
faced with the curious problem of the "dead composition".
Aside 1:
Visual poetry has built within it the resistance to speech, or, rather "being
spoken". In its being resistant to being spoken, it is regarded as a visual
phenomenon, an art that relies on light. To speak a visual poem would be a bold
failure, or else would be to describe it rather than speak it. I can describe what I
see in visual poetry, but I will forever be blocked from conveying its full
expression in spoken form. I may narrate parts that are readable, or even attempt
to verbalize the contorted series of, say, a concatenation of consonants like
"gfssdrttnb", but even so this is a violation of the visual intention of the poem for it
has been designed for the eye as an aesthetic production.
Aside 2:
Boundless limitation is romanticism's inescapable irony: it is an unattainable
ideality that it strives for, but cannot reach. The irony doubles when it is this
boundlessness that motivates the romantic, for the non-rational basis of
appealing to emotions defies quantification, measurement, and can only be
expressed by means of words that approximate the signified. Romanticism relies
on the grandiosity of things as well as the infinitesimal - from the scale of a man
in the face of a swelling storm to the smallest turn as a mood goes from one to
another in the flash of the instant. In some ways, it is physiocratic, and in others
psychological, but even these are unsatisfying signifiers that will cause an infinite
regress of explanations that need still further explanations. Scale is referenced or
indexed to something static, and so the general understanding of the size of the
geologist's hammer or a dime next to a schist assures the frame of reference, the
scale between the known object and the unknown in terms of size. The unknown
does not have the luxury (or the burden) to define the scale of the known except
by recursion, but such a recursion happens when the known defines the
unknown, and the unknown reflects back upon the known. In either case, the
reference point is the same, and so the scale between the two is a comparative
based on the knowledge of the determined thing that can shed light upon the
undetermined.
It is not that we agree with this way of thinking, but it is a prejudice of our
cognitive faculty. It antedates Hegel and his ratio-centric way to knowledge; i.e.,
that we may come to know the unknown by reference to that which we already
accept as known. Of course, for Hegel, there is the added level or layer of
knowledge in allowing the now newly determined object (courtesy of the already
determined) to re-determine with more detail the initial term. A is A by virtue of
the fact that it is not-B, but B is B by virtue of the fact that is not-A (or C, D, etc.).
We know A, and can better use this understanding to figure out what B is, and
we learn more about A when we compare it to what it is not, namely, B.
Aims:
To deliver language into the hands of delirium, the aberrant, the monstrous, to
bifurcate in such a way as to reveal its inner madness through evocations and
annunciations. This is to bring about the word's inherent duotone. Borrowing from
what Deleuze calls heterogenesis, it is at the point that a style (or method of
expression) splits, revealing its shadow. This is not a push toward essentializing,
for there is no depth to discover - only surfaces, facets on a 2-dimensional plane.
Morphemic mutations, perhaps, splintering, fractalizing while devouring its own
genesis, its initial stage of the equation that convened the process. Any attempt
at grounding the "style" of lysic is to slip into second-order descriptions which
themselves may be dissolved by the ravenous and indifferent (tyrannical)
process of de-composition.
In the end, what does lysic "promise", as if it is beholden to promise
anything? The art of a future to come (avenir) will belong to the monstrous, the
aberrant, the vitalist surge of affirmative difference. It is the same for a Grand
Politics, a Grand Style: the people of the not-yet owe their loyalties to that which
de-compose the structures and systems in the same movement that recomposes
them with more fluidity.
Cyborg: A Golemic
(cyborgolemika)
To the Grand Inquisitor who ordered the burning of my life's collection of sacred texts
and works. May the fire consume the pages and unleash the phlogiston of my words
that may asphyxiate those who dare to deem my esteemed person heretical.
The 'e' as in EMET contra the 'e' in ECRITURE -
;one in granting life, the other a signal (of) death.
Efface the 'e' 'e'-facere /.
Rabbi Judah Loew carves in clay the terragenesis,
Meyrink kills the golemic hero in words.
(Speaking of:) in: Genesis,
Adam out of clay / Eve marinated spare rib.
Adam the golem with the Word of life and Eve
a Platonic simulacrum, a copy of a copy,
a synthetic perfection Wunderblock &
a cyborg derived from golemical Adam.
Skip tracer on the Golem to Cain:
a serpent marks on forehead eternal EMET
(those who would efface Cain would be punished with MET).
Skip tracer on the Golem to Albertus Magnus,
the androidea, the homunculus he built from brass
(that his pupil, Aquinas, destroyed with a stick - referenced
later in Henry Miller as Picodiribibi).
James Cameron made for you and me
a cinematic Eve in masculine attire,
and Herzog made him go masked invincibly as a Jew
performing Aryan entertainments for a pre-digital Reich.
Demonstrate a de-monster-ation, a pteratological dirt
A golem,
created by clay and mysticism
(Sefer Yetzirah & the Zohar)
imbued with Tellurian power with
purpose to protect life.
Frankenstein was created by electric and galvanic power.
Superman's nemesis, the Galactic Golem
was created by the physis ex machina
of "galactic matter" and nefarious science by that
aptly named anti-Catholic Lex Luthor.
Its purpose: to eat its galactic afterbirth.
Two Terminators via Cameron;
yet hard to discern which is golem, which cyborg.
The distinctions collapse when analog and digital
freely trade off.
Superman despatches the Golem through a contest of absurdity: Superman hits the Galactic
Golem so hard that the monster is sent hurtling for three miles. As Superman gives chase, the
Golem hurls icebergs at him, knocking him out of the sky. Not to be outdone, Superman draws
molten iron and nickel from the earth's core to trap him by magnetism atop the North Pole. Like
Shelley's Frankenstein, but with no reader pity, the Golem is last seen floating on an ice raft into
the Arctic darkness.
The building blocks of earth wielded by an extraterrestrial versus an extraterrestrial
The building blocks of earth wielded by an extraterrestrial versus an extraterrestrial
monster.
-the goylem(me)
Shapeless mass, der Golem
a lump of clay, Adam
a lump of mercury
and the "souffle" of life.
Albertus Magnus, the patron saint of natural science
with three sides lead-earth
and three sides gold-heavens,
made a puzzle box, a cube.
Mandrake.
Cyborg = made of refined clay.
Hubris of creation.
Hardly a harmless drudge, the lexicologist tinkers in shadow,
tweaks a meaning with clandestine subtlety,
and makes of a word his own monster.
and makes of a word his own monster.
The hubris of the Enlightenment edges sleep
with the resultant nightmares of modern science.
Here: a man-made man, a forming of men, a Promethean battalion
of automata
of automata
There (and now): reckless replication of automata
in an insurance tower
in an insurance tower
where rational organization trumps
substantive meaning
(thus spake Kafka, thus spake Weber).
To dramatize the pseudo-flesh
and dramatize the dramatization:
that was the work of Meyrink and Wegener.
Golems of literature and
golems of cinema.
golems of cinema.
Golems in cubicles
Golems of genetics, the genome is golemone.
Mickey Magnus animates a broom.
as: bureaucracy is the animation of golem labour.
O imitatio Dei
O imitatio corporationei
O imitatio golemi, cyborgi, ordinatii.
Truth, emblazoned on countenance, is always
punishment.
punishment.
Bar/bar
(for Asher Ghaffar)
All roads lead to barbarism &
all signposts mutely sign exile
a whorl of driftsnow
turns borders on their poll station to station head
to disgorge contents of a now closing-of-the-commons
frontier.
Tight fist over loose cannon;
a harbinger or a jeremiad?
Gone for good are the men of good manners.
Encourage space to widen itself
but a border is a wedge driven deep
in frozen, buckled ground.
Discourage those who would claw terrain
from rightful heirs,
but still one military nail scratches a line.
Maps become totalizing statements;
states of affairs follow, derivatively.
Weakly, play that one note once more
that plaintive, doleful note that
summarizes history right up to its sewn end.
Sonata in D, not the millenarian cacophony.
A soft note moistened by two tear drops.
They come with the standards bared
and they drive the mast for a flag
in a bullet hole, in a body.
That is where the new border is made,
that spume of a flag, in blood.
I saw it on television once twice.
An arrogant collection of shoulders propping up
victory where victory was uncalled for.
I read the testimonials
and watched the glory movies they made of it.
Fashioned for deliverance.
Kostabi Effect
You write I sign
The meatbox compressor of language
Paid to pen pen for pay
Churn crank a mini-cloaca machine
In the Wimulacra of Wimulations.
A pope of sheissein.
We of the irony industry
In boredom smile the width of our wallets.
“we make money not art”.
Lapsed Warholics 12 steps to success
A neon splash on brow of diktat
Market logometrics of manufacturing taste.
Dr. Kane X. Faucher
FIMS/MIT Instructor, The University of Western Ontario.
Freelance Writer, Scene Magazine.
Co-editor: The Raging Face, The Drill Press, Sorrowland Press
Interview Editor: ditch, Poetry
Proctor: IELTS (British Council)
-
Author of Urdoxa (2004) Codex Obscura (2005) Fort & Da (2006), Calqueform, Astrozoica, De Incunabliad (2007). Jonkil Dies, Tales Pinned on a Complete Ass: Travel to Romania (2009) The Vicious Circulation of Dr Catastrope (2009)
-
Google keywords: "kane x faucher"
