Hours ago, BBBB (best bipolar bear buddy) Enzo and I talked about people who go on with their lives just to go about with the cycle. Human me is frustrated of the situation. We attended a journalism seminar in which the speaker answers classroom-like questions of journ students of the university which conducted the seminar. I literally flared up inside, shot everyone inside the hall with an MK-16 and killed myself. The End.
1: I'm not going on with this story.
A: It's useless.
1: Futile.
1: It's bane to go on blabbering about one's perception on life.
A: What do you want to speak of?
1: Deep thoughts.
A: You're lying.
1: It's just that --We (BBBB and I) were walking along outside the hotel for an adventure and right at the moment I saw where we were heading i just said "I can't. I can't go on with this walking trip. Let's head back to the boring lecture." (why?) "--- lives in there." (doesn't matter, it's alright) to self: Nobody.
Reflection: Shit. Why be like this? Weak and feeble. Why can't i control it? Why can't i just be dissociated from these "triggers" that bring me to oblivion? Can't this human reaction go away after saying it's pathetic and there's no more hope in regaining shizzzz?
J: If only you could laugh it off like hollywood.
Eyes were burning.
-oh wait. EDIT.
this is what i mean by deep thought:
link
This bond between death and language has an important consequence, Blanchot argues. First of all, it also means that I am separate from myself. The fact that I can use my own name means there is something about me which is separate from my own existence here and now. I can speak about myself in the absence of my being, and there is something deeply impersonal about my name. It is not just that someone else can have my name, but my name has a meaning even though I am not there. Someone can speak about me when I am not in the room, or I can speak about myself in the third person.
This would mean that language is linked to nothingness in two ways: first, in the annihilation of the object, and second, in the absence of the presence of the speaker. Of course I can direct language to myself, but in so doing I simply turn my subjectivity into an object, and then I am right back to the annihilation of the object in the first case. This is quite a different way of thinking about language. For ordinarily when we think about language we imagine it to be the communication of an intention. I think something, and then put this thought into words, and I then speak these words, which are then heard by someone who then, in turn, translates these words back into ideas. For Blanchot what is first is not the intention, but the nothingness of language. Language is first of all negation, because what is first is not the intention but the word that expresses the intention, and this word is essentially nothing. So if we take the simple word ‘cat’, the possibility that it can signify the idea ‘cat’ is that the word is not the cat. It is this ‘not’ that fascinates Blanchot, for it marks an absence that is at the heart of language, which in ordinary communication we tend to forget or cover over by referring language to the intention of the speaker. The thought takes the place of the presence of the object to offset the absence of the word.
grief is not a holiday.[:
-oh so complications of human life. My consciousness is not entirely limited to being human.:>
No comments:
Post a Comment