13 May 2023

On the Uncertain Duty of a Writer

 

 
Someone told me the other day that, as a writer, I have a duty to always say what I think. 

Aside from the fact that I don't feel under any such obligation, I'm not sure it's possible to speak one's mind and then simply turn spoken words into text; certainly it's a far more difficult task than non-writers imagine. 
 
For as Kafka pointed out, whilst thought, speech, and writing all emerge from (and proceed into) the same darkness, we write differently to how we speak; speak differently to how we think; think differently to how we feel - and, indeed, think differently to how we think we think and how we think we ought to think.     
 
To put this in a Nietzschean nutshell: We knowers are unknown to ourselves - and that's why it's only naive or stupid people who are sure of themselves and their opinions; who pride themselves on their sincerity and believe they can instruct others on their duty. 
 
Writers, like quantum particles, are bound by the principle of uncertainty. 
 
 

11 May 2023

A Warning from Cinematic History: The Tragic Case of James Xavier - The Man with the X-Ray Eyes

"He stripped souls as bare as bodies!"
 Ray Milland as Dr James Xavier in
The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (1963)
 

I. 
 
People who subscribe to the myth of Genesis [1] believe that darkness is simply a lack of illumination, or the absence of visible light. 
 
In other words, they think of it as a purely negative quality in binary opposition to divine radiance; that truth, goodness, and wisdom all shine brightly, whilst darkness is the home of secrets, lies, and a shameful form of ignorance that leads to sin. 
 
Such metaphysical dualism is, of course, just a convenient way of ordering the world for simple-minded folk who fear complexity (and, indeed, fear the darkness and those things that go bump in the night).
 
Artists and philosophers, on the other hand, understand that not only is darkness vital - that human life needs a little shadow to add depth and mystery - but light and darkness are coeval. That is to say, they are intimately connected and bring each other forth; not absolutely distinct and separate. 
 
Thus, when I say that I love the darkness, I am not implying I hate the light. 
 
Indeed, my concern, as a philosopher, is not to critique those who wish to see the world clearly by the light of reason, but take issue with those who subscribe to an ideal of total transparency, driven as they are by an insane desire to see through everything in a profoundly dangerous (and nihilistic) manner as if they had x-ray vision like the man who best exemplifies our Transparenzgesellschaft [2], James Xavier. 


II.
 
The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (1963) is an American science fiction film directed by Roger Corman, from a script by Ray Russell and Robert Dillon, and starring Ray Milland as Dr James Xavier, a scientist who develops eye drops that allow him to see beyond the visible spectrum into the ultraviolet and x-ray wavelengths. 
 
What starts out as fun - seeing through a pretty girl's clothing - soon ends in tragedy. For eventually Xavier can see the world only in forms of light and texture that his brain is unable to fully comprehend and - having lost the darkness - he loses his mind and his life. 
 
The film was a huge hit at the time, but it is only now that it's warning about the dangers of total transparency and of no longer being able to close one's eyes and dream in revitalising darkness, takes on cultural pertinence.
 
As Xavier's self-induced condition worsens, he begins to wear thick protective goggles, that uncannily anticipate the headsets that we are encouraged to put on in order to explore a digital metaverse in which reality is dissolved in an acid of virtual light.     
 
One fears that eventually the only thing that will save us from madness will be to gouge out our own eyes, as Xavier does his.  
 
   
 
If thine eyes offend thee ...
 
 
Notes
 
[1] I'm referring here to the famous opening lines of Genesis 1, which detail how light was created by God and separated off from the primal darkness that was upon the face of the deep when the Earth was without form and void.
 
[2] This concept is explored by Byung-Chul Han in his book The Transparency Society, trans. Erik Butler, (Stanford University Press, 2015). I have discussed this book in a three-part post on Torpedo the Ark: click here for part 1; here for part 2; here for part 3. 


10 May 2023

The Astounding Story of Olga Mesmer: The Girl with the X-Ray Eyes


 
I recently mentioned Superman and his x-ray vision in a post on the pervy comic potential of such a gift: click here
 
But whilst he is certainly the most famous possessor of this ability, he is not the first fictional character to be able to see through solid objects (such as brick walls) and opaque materials (like the fabric of Lois Lane's dress) [1].   
 
Pre-dating the Man of Steel's first comic book appearance by several months [2], was the pulp fiction pin-up Olga Mesmer - aka, The Girl with the X-Ray Eyes - who appeared in Spicy Mystery magazine from August 1937 to October 1938. 
 
Like Superman, Olga was blessed with incredible strength and x-ray vision, though her powers stemmed from scientific experimentation (involving radiation) carried out by her human father (Dr Hugo Mesmer) on her alien mother (Margot), and had nothing to do with living beneath a yellow sun.
 
These powers lay dormant throughout her childhood, but burst into light once she reached adolescence and first became sexually aroused. She would later use her powers to battle evil-doers, in the course of which she would invariably rip (or manage to lose) her clothes (unlike Clark Kent, she didn't have a homemade costume to wear).  
 
Sadly, Olga Mesmer is now largely a forgotten female figure in the pop cultural imagination. 
 
And amongst those who do remember her, there are some who would deny her status as a genuine superhero; apparently, she doesn't display all the necessary tropes to qualify (and heaven forbid that Siegel and Shuster's Man of Steel should be denied the title of World's First Superhero).    
 
 

 
Notes
 
[1] Although commonly referred to as x-ray vision, this ability might more accurately be described as see-through vision, as it has very little to do with actual x-rays. Still, it seems a little pedantic to press the issue. The point is that when Superman turns his extraordinary vision on an object it is effectively rendered transparent, allowing him thus to either see inside or see beyond. I'm not sure how this power is explained, but assume it is attributable to the Photonucleic Effect.   
 
[2] Superman, created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster, made his debut in Action Comics #1, cover-dated June 1938, but published in April of that year.
 

9 May 2023

On the Voyeuristic Comic Potential of X-Ray Vision (With Reference to the Case of Superman and Lois Lane)


 
The voyeuristic comic potential of x-ray vision has long been recognised. 
 
Older readers may recall ads for novelty glasses, such as the one above, which guaranteed that one would not only be able to see bones through flesh, but, more interestingly, what lies beneath the dress of the girl next door (to your amusement and, presumably, her embarrassment). 
 
Who needs to try and sneak-a-peek upskirt or down blouse, when one can actually see through clothing thanks to a pair of X-Ray Spex ...?
 
But, alas, such glasses don't really allow one to possess x-ray vision. In reality, they merely create an ingenious (though not very convincing) optical illusion, that is quite literally a trick of the light and its diffraction [1]
 
And so, unless you happen to be Clark Kent, I regret to say you're probably never going to be able to see through solid objects and normally opaque materials. 
 
Speaking of Superman, it's interesting to note with reference to what we have been discussing, that whilst he mostly uses his power for good, even he can't resist perving on Lois Lane and checking out the colour of her underwear on at least one occasion (although to be fair to the Man of Steel, this was at her invitation) [2].      
 
 
Lois Lane invites Superman to demonstrate his x-ray vision 
by asking: What colour underwear am I wearing?
 
 
Notes
 
[1] The principle behind the illusion - as well as its use in a pair of spectacles - was first patented (in the United States) in 1906 by George W. Macdonald. But the man behind x-ray glasses as most people know them, was the American mail-order genius and inventor Harold von Braunhut. He was also the man who sold the world Sea-Monkeys and invisible goldfish. 
 
[2] I'm referring here to a scene in Superman (1978), dir. Richard Donner, and starring Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent / Superman and Margot Kidder as Lois Lane: click here
      For the record, Miss Lane was wearing pink underwear, which, depending on one's sartorial taste, would either compliment or clash with our hero's favoured red pants (famously worn over his bright blue tights). 


5 May 2023

Reflections on Stephen Alexander's 'When the Moon Hits Your Eye' - A Guest Post by Sally Guaragna

Stephen Alexander: When the Moon Hits Your Eye (2017) 
 Caspar David Friedrich: Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer (1818)
 

For me, whilst Stephen Alexander's amusing photograph entitled When the Moon Hits Your Eye has a surreal aspect provided by its incorporation of a big pizza pie [1], it is clearly rooted in German Romanticism, nodding as it does to the mid-period work of Caspar David Friedrich [2] which typically features a contemplative figure seen from behind and silhouetted against an allegorical landscape.

This compositional device - known as a Rückenfigur - is often used to convey man's insignificance before the vast expanse of nature; that is to say, his sense of isolation and existential anxiety when confronted with the sublime (i.e., inhuman beauty on an overwhelming scale). 
 
As one commentator rightly notes, in using this anonymous and indistinct figure seen from behind, artists are able to create "a metaphorical bridge for the viewer" [3] by which they are able to insert themselves into the image. The Rückenfigur functions thus as an avatar, as well as symbolising the heroic archetype of Man Alone. 
 
Alexander makes clear, however, that the figure in his image should primarily be conceived as a wanderer - a key term in his philosophical lexicon, as it is for many artists, poets and thinkers who work in a post-Romantic tradition. One recalls the words of Nietzsche, for example, with which I would like to close this short post: 
 
"He who has attained freedom of spirit to any extent cannot regard himself otherwise than as a wanderer on the face of the earth - and not even as a traveller towards a final destination, for such does not exist." [4]          
 
 
Notes
 
[1] I have since discovered that Alexander's picture does not, in fact, make use of a pizza; the 'moon' is actually a pancake. It remains a witty and surreal use of food in order to create a work of art. 
 
[2] Caspar David Friedrich (1774-1840) was a 19th-century German landscape painter, generally considered the most important artist of his generation. His work seeks to convey a subjective, emotional response to the natural world coupled to a Gothic sensibility. 
      It has been suggested by the American art critic Thomas Bonneville, that Alexander's image actually owes more to the work of the English painter (and visionary) Samuel Palmer (1805-1881), who certainly loved a moonlit landscape. However, whilst this might be the case, I can find no evidence to support this claim.
 
[3] Laura Thipphawong, 'The Mysterious Appeal of the Rückenfigur' (2021) on artshelp.com: click here
 
[4] Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, I. 638. It's important to note, however, that Nietzsche's wanderer is not some kind of hypercultural tourist. Indeed, paradoxical as it sounds, his form of existence is what Heidegger terms dwelling.  
 

3 May 2023

Artificial Intelligence Doesn't Get Goosebumps

Illustration: Victor de Schwanberg 
Science Photo Library / Getty Images
 
 
Just about everyone - from Elon Musk and Geoffrey Hinton to Tim Pendry [1] - is warning these days about the coming AI revolution. 
 
And whilst I certainly don't wish to underestimate the dangers presented by artificial intelligence, I continue to be encouraged by the fact that because machines cannot feel, they cannot really think; that mind is ultimately a product of suffering.
 
Or, as Byung-Chul Han puts it: "The negativity of pain is constitutive of thought. Pain is what distinguishes thinking from calculating, from artificial intelligence." [2]
 
Generative AI may be capable of independent learning and producing the most astonishing results. But it will never give birth to thoughts in the manner that a mother gives birth to a child, invested with "blood, heart, fire, pleasure, passion, agony, conscience, fate, and catastrophe" [3].  
 
 
Notes
 
[1] Whilst I take seriously what these three wise men have to say about technology and the future of humanity, I certainly don't wish to hear from King Charles III on the subject: see the post written on 7 September 2018, when he was still the Prince of Wales: I said it then and I'll say it again now: better artificial intelligence than royal stupidity.      
 
[2] Byung-Chul Han, The Palliative Society, trans. Daniel Steuer, (Polity Press, 2021), p. 39. 
      See also Han's Non-things: Upheaval in the Lifeworld, trans. Daniel Steuer, (Polity Press, 2022), in which he argues: "Artificial intelligence is incapable of thinking, for the very reason that it cannot get goosebumps." Readers who are interested may click here for my post on this book. And this short piece by Mariella Moon on robots designed to sweat and get goosebumps, might also amuse.    

[3] Nietzsche, The Gay Science, trans. Walter Kaufmann, (Vintage Books, 1974), Preface for the Second Edition, §3, p. 36. 


26 Apr 2023

Reflections on a Snail at the Birdbath


Snail at the Birdbath 
 (SA/2023)
 
 
I sent the above photo of a garden snail crawing along the lip of the birdbath to M. and she said: 'I didn't know they needed to drink.'

Which is not as foolish as it first sounds; for although garden snails absorb a significant amount of fluid from their food - and some directly through their skin - they do, in fact, need to drink regularly in order to maintain their water balance and not dry out. 
 
This is not surprising when one discovers that snails are actually composed of almost 90% water (which is 20% more water than human beings, but 5% less than jellyfish). 
 
But still, it's not often you see snails actually taking a drink ...
 
However, that's not to say the snail pictured was quenching its thirst; I prefer to think he was, like Narcissus, admiring his reflection in the water (even at the risk of falling in and drowning). 
 
But then, it might be asked: Can snails see? And, even if they can see, would they pass the mirror test; i.e., are they able to recognise their own reflection?
 
In answer to the first question - yes, snails can see. 
 
However, they can't see very well; they can't differentiate colours and although their eyes do possess a lens, they lack the ability to focus images. Pretty much, they can sense light and dark and work out where a source of light is coming from. But that's about it. 
 
Still, snails do have an excellent sense of smell and can feel vibrations, changes in temperature or humidity, etc. Thus, they do okay - and have been doing okay for millions of years.

As for the second question, well, to be honest, it's doubtful that a snail would pass an MSR test. As far as scientists are aware, only a very small number of creatures can do so; apes, dolphins, elephants, magpies - i.e., the usual suspects. 

But who knows what goes on in the (literally) brainless mind of a snail ...?
 
 

25 Apr 2023

Mourning Post: with Reference to Roland Barthes's Journal de Deuil

A favourite photo of my mother
(taken in 1947, aged 21)
 
 
"Does being able to live without someone you loved 
mean you loved her less than you thought ...?" 
 
 
I.
 
There are some books we love immediately upon first reading; and there are other books which it takes time (and several readings) to fall in love with. 
 
Then there are books like Roland Barthes's Journal de deuil (2009) [a] which one only begins to appreciate once one has lived through a similar experience as the author - in this case, the death of a mother.
 
 
II.
 
The day after his mother's death, in October 1977, Barthes began assembling notes written on quartered slips of paper in which he reflected on his sadness, sense of loss, and the fact that modern society seems to leave no time or space in which to express one's grief; as soon as someone dies, there's a frenzied attempt to move on and the bereaved are encouraged to get over it, as if they have a minor illness [b]
 
During the following two years, Barthes wrote over 300 of these notes, the contents of which eventually being published in the form of a mourning diary
 
I do not here wish to present an overview of these fragments of text, but simply comment on those ideas which most resonate with me at this time and express my agreement with Barthes that the individual should insist on their right to mourn; for it is also the right to "the loving relation it implies" [55]
 
In a nutshell, dear reader, don't let your suffering be stolen from you ... [c]
 
Note: the titles supplied below are mine.
 
 
III.
 
On the Corpse Bride
 
There was, I would suggest, something of the same high degree of intimacy between Roland Barthes and his mother as between D. H. Lawrence and his. 
 
Thus, for example, the opening note of the former's Mourning Diary which suggests that the first night grieving for one's mother is comparable in terms of its passion and emotional intensity to a wedding night, reminds me of the opening verse from one of the latter's early poems:

"My love looks like a girl tonight,
      But she is old.
The plaits that lie along her pillow
      Are not gold,
But threaded with filigree silver,
      And uncanny cold."
 
The same poem concludes: 

"Nay, but she sleeps like a bride, and dreams her dreams 
      Of perfect things.
She lies at last, the darling, in the shape of her dream,
      And her dead mouth sings ..." [d]
 
 
On the Maternal Body
 
This first note is followed by one written the next day in which Barthes, who was homosexual, counters the accusation that he has never known a woman's body: "I have known the body of my mother, sick and then dying." [4]    
 
Me too: and it's only now that I stop to think of the strangeness of this fact; that one was fated to care for the body one was born of when that body approached its end and that from out of the death of this maternal body one is somehow issued anew. 
 
To quote from Lawrence once more: "My little love, my dearest / Twice you have issued me / Once from your womb, sweet mother / Once from your soul ..." [e]
 
 
On Posthumous Desire
 
The fifth fragment dated 29 October is one of the most astonishing: it exactly summarises my position and how I feel. No commentary is required, it just needs quoting in full:

"The desires I had before her death (while she was sick) can no longer be fulfilled, for that would mean it is her death that allows me to fulfill them - her death might be a liberation in some sense with regard to my desires. But her death has changed me, I no longer desire what I used to desire. I must wait - supposing that such a thing could happen - for a new desire to form, a desire following her death." [18] [f]
 
 
On Turning Life (and Death) into Literature 
 
I understand why Barthes didn't want to discuss his mother's life, let alone write about her death, for fear of "making literature out of it" [22]
 
However, as a writer, he just couldn't help himself - and neither can I. 
 
For like Barthes, I recognise that literature originates with a death - the death of a porcupine, for example, or perhaps even the death of the author - and that Walter Benjamin was right to say that what we ultimately seek in art is the knowledge of an event that is denied to us in reality. [g]   
 
 
On Last Words
 
Many people about to die do so in silence, particularly if, like my mother, Alzheimer's robbed them of their ability to communicate years earlier. 
 
And I'm not sure there's anything further to say to the dying beyond a certain point; kind gestures - such as a smile, a kiss, a squeeze of the hand - seem to matter more at the very end. 
 
Having said that, the romantic notion of last words - one which "falsely promises a final burst of lucidity and meaning before a person passes" [h] remains ingrained within our culture and even Barthes finds himself often thinking of his mother's words spoken "in the breath of her agony" [40].
 
Similarly, I find the final two words spoken to me by my mother constantly recurring; the first a word of greeting and the second one of recognition: Hello Stephen. The memory of these words will, I trust, always move me. [i]    
 
 
On Courage
 
Barthes is right: mourning doesn't require courage; the time for courage is when your mother is sick and requires care; when you witness her suffering, her sadness, her confusion and have to conceal your tears (or, as in my case, control your anger and frustration). 
 
 
On Absence [I]
 
Barthes is struck by the painful nature of absence; that it is not so much a lack, as a wound. And struck also by the fact that, with his mother gone, he no longer has anyone to announce his arrival to (or greet him) when he gets home. 
 
Again, I understand this perfectly. But, luckily, I have Cat for company and whilst cats may or may not understand what it is to mourn, they certainly know when we are sad, depressed, or anxious and act accordingly (i.e., attempt to comfort us).   
 
 
On Absence [II] 
 
Everytime I go upstairs and look into my mother's room, "there unexpectedly rises within me, like a bursting bubble: the realisation that she no longer exists, she no longer exists ..." [78] 
 
And I realise also that the dead are all equally dead and gone; it doesn't matter if they died two months ago, like my mother, 36 years ago like Barthes's maman, or two millennia ago like that Siberian princess preserved in ice. 
 
Death is a flat and timeless ontological plane upon which nothing matters and nothing changes and to know this - to know that the dead are eternally and absolutely dead - is also to know that we too "will die forever and completely" [119] [j].    
 
 
On the Truth of Mourning
 
The fragment dated 28 May, 1978, is another that is worth quoting in full:   
 
"The truth about mourning is quite simple: now that  maman is dead, I am faced with death (nothing any longer separates me from it except time)."

Unfortunately, being 60 - the same age as Barthes when he wrote this - there's not even a great deal of time any longer separating me from death (although, hopefully, I'll not be hit by a laundry van in the near future) [k].  
 
But this tragic realisation enables one to understand why it was Nietzsche taught his readers not to pray, but to bless ...
 
 
On Some Sunny Day
 
In a very brief hand-scribbled note left for me and my sister, my mother expressed her hope that, one day, we'd meet again. I don't think that's very likely (or even very desirable; the thought of personal immortality is one I find laughable and abhorrent) [l].
 
But, like Marcel Proust, Barthes is devastated by the fact his mother has died and echoes the author of À la recherche du temps perdu when he writes: "If I were sure of meeting Maman again, I'd die right away." [157]
 
 
On Acedia
 
As we know, the ancient Greeks had a word for everything, including that state of listless indifference in which the heart slowly contracts and hardens: ἀκηδία - or, as we write in Latinised modern English, acedia (or accidie). 
 
It's a concept that Christian theologians borrowed and developed in moral terms; and it's a concept that many writers in the 20th century seemed to have a penchant for, though tending to discuss it as a psychological (or existential) phenomenon. Aldous Huxley, for example, wrote an essay on the subject and concluded that it was one of the main afflictions of the modern age [m].
 
Walter Benjamin also gave acedia an important place within his literary criticism, describing it as an indolence of the heart [n]; whilst Barthes, writing in his Mourning Diary, notes that whilst he believed that following his mother's death there would be a liberation in kindness, what has actually happened is he finds himself "unable to invest lovingly in any other being" [118].
 
In a later fragment, he defines acedia as a form of desolating egoism and writes:
 
"Horrible figure of mourning: acedia, hard-heartedness: irritability, impotence to love. Anguished because I don't know how to restore generosity to my life - or love." [178]            
 
Again, it pains to me say, but I know exactly what he means ...  


Maintaining the Quotidian
 
When my mother died, I thought I'd want to flee the house; to get out as often as possible and meet as many people as possible; to get back into the world
 
But, two months on, I've been nowhere and seen no one and I think Barthes provides a clue as to why this is; one tries to continue living - for a while at least - as if she were still here and according not so much to her values, but her needs. 
 
By maintaining the household order (or what Barthes terms the domestic quotidian) - cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc. - one shares in the activities that shaped her life and it's a way of remembering and silently conversing with her [o].


Anti-Mourning
 
Q: What is "the furthest from, the most antipathetic to" [196] mourning in gentle silence? 
 
A: Reading Le Monde, "in its acid and well-informed tactics" [196], says Barthes, writing in 1978; checking social media, in its malevolent toxicity, say I, here in 2023.   

 
In Memory / Filial Piety
 
Like Sade, Barthes has no concern for posterity; no desire to be read and remembered after he's dead; no wish for a monument. He is, he says, perfectly content to vanish completely [p].
 
However, Barthes cannot accept that this should be the case for his mother; "perhaps because she has not written and her memory depends entirely on me" [234]

That's why I'm writing this post (and those related to it); I would also like my mother's kindness and modesty to be recorded. As I said at her funeral [q], if I don't speak up for her, no one will (certainly not my sister). 
 
But as Barthes's translator Richard Howard notes, perhaps the ultimate task of every son is neither to bury nor sing the praises his mother, but to show a little gratitude; "to exalt her exceptional contribution to his own happiness" [260].   
 
 
Notes
 
[a] The English edition of this work by Barthes was translated by Richard Howard as Mourning Diary and published by Hill and Wang in 2010. All page numbers in the post refer to this edition. 
      Arguably, it might have been better to have come up with an alternative title. For in a note of November 30, 1977, Barthes instructs: "Don't say mourning. It's too psychoanalytic. I'm not mourning. I'm suffering." For Barthes, this Proustian notion of suffering is that which remains (ever present) when emotivity passes. See pp. 73 and 103-04.   
 
[b] Barthes writes in the note dated 20 July, 1978, on p. 163, that he finds the idea of taking an anti-depressant drug to help him overcome his grief shameful; as if suffering were a disease, rather than something essential. 
 
[c] In a fragment on p. 71 of the Mourning Diary, dated 29 November, 1977, Barthes writes: "I can't endure seeing my suffering being reduced - being generalized - (à la Kierkegaard): it's as if it were being stolen from me." 
      However, he later realises the importance of transforming suffering from a static stage to a fluid state. See the fragment dated 13 June, 1978, on p. 142.
 
[d] D. H. Lawrence, 'The Bride', in The Poems, ed. Christopher Pollnitz, (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 65-66.  

[e] D. H. Lawrence, 'The Virgin Mother', in The Poems, pp. 66.
 
[f] See also the fragment dated 16 November, 1977 on p. 53: "Sometimes roused by desires [...] but they're desires of before - somehow anachronistic; they come from another shore, another country, the country of before."
 
[g] Later in his Mourning Diary, Barthes will admit that writing is his salvation and that depression is when "in the depths of despair, I cannot manage to save myself by my attachment to writing". 
      See the fragments dated 21 November, 1977 on pp. 59 and 62. See also the fragment on p. 105 dated 23 March 1978 in which Barthes speaks of integrating his suffering with his writing in his book on photography (Camera Lucida). And finally, see the notes dated 17 and 18 of January, 1979, on pp. 224-225, in which Barthes admits that since his mother's death he has no desire to construct anything new except in writing.    
 
[h] Michael Erard, 'What People Actually Say Before They Die', The Atlantic (16 Jan 2019): click here.

[i] Having said that, Barthes acknowledges (with horror) the possibility that the memory of a mother's last words will one day fail to move (make cry or make smile). See the fragment dated 19 November, 1977 on p. 57. 

[j] Having said that, in a thanatological fragment published back in September 2014, I wrote:
      "We shouldn't reify death, nor confuse the fact of our own individual death with non-being. At most, death might be seen as a temporary pause or refreshment before the inevitable return to what Nick Land describes as the compulsive dissipation of life." 
      
[k] On 25 February 1980, Barthes was knocked down by the driver of a laundry van while walking home through the streets of Paris. He died from his injuries one month later, aged 64. 
 
[l] I'm a little more sympathetic to the idea of metempsychosis (i.e., the transmigration of souls) and like the idea of atoms being endlessly recycled and assembled into new bodies and objects of all kinds. Seeing the swallows flying "through the summer evening air" whilst on holiday in Morocco, Barthes tells himself: "how barbarous not to believe in souls - in the immortality of souls!" See the fragment dated 13 July, 1978 on p. 159. 
 
[m] See Huxley's essay 'Accidie' in On the Margin (George H. Doran Company, 1923), pp. 25-31. Readers can also click here to read the essay online in the Project Gutenberg ebook.   

[n] See Walter Benjamin, The Origin of German Tragic Drama, trans. John Osborne, (Verso, 2003).
 
[o] See the fragments dated 18 August, 1978 on pp. 190 and 192. 

[p] In his will, the Marquis de Sade expressed the wish that his grave be strewn with acorns, so that it would be eventually covered with oak trees. In this way, "any trace of my grave will disappear from the face of the earth, just as I trust the memory of me will fade from the minds of everyone, save for the few who in their goodness have loved me to the last". 
      See the English translation (from which I quote) by R. J. Dent in Philosophy Now, Issue 143 (April/May 2021): click here to read online. 

[q] See the post entitled 'From a Baby in a Basket ...' (27 Feb 2023) which reproduces in full the few lines spoken at my mother's funeral: click here. 


"And so, my love, my mother,
I shall always be true to you."


23 Apr 2023

On Being Followed by a Seagull

(SA/2023)
 
"It is right for a gull to fly -
freedom is the very nature of its being ..." [1]

 
I. 
 
The other day, walking in the park, I was followed by a seagull. Although it might simply be the case that he was hoping for some food, a poet friend insists on the symbolic (and spiritual) importance of the event.
 
Apparently, these intelligent and beautiful birds are not merely noisy opportunists, but able to travel between realms and bring us messages (or warnings) from the dead. 
 
Normally, I wouldn't give much time to such a thought, but as I'm still mourning the death of my mother - who loved birds - I'm inclined to be a little more receptive to the idea that the gull wanted me to know something. 
 
But what? 
 
That, of course, is the question - and the difficulty. How can one know that one has interpreted a message from the dead carried by a feathered messenger correctly? 
 
I'm not sure you can. But this is my attempt to do so ...
 
 
II.
 
As the bird remained silent, I assume it wasn't telling me to find my own voice. 
 
In fact, I'm keen to speak less and look more these days; to move away from the written text towards the world of images; to put down the pen and pick up the paintbrush; to exchange the computer keyboard for the camera. 
 
So maybe the gull was encouraging me with this; to quietly find my wings, so to speak, as a visual artist and fly above past limitations and the somewhat grim (anxiety-inducing) circumstances of the present (health issues, money worries, threats from Google to terminate this blog because I have violated their community guidelines, etc.).    
 
I certainly prefer to interpret being followed by a seagull as a good sign; as something positive, rather than a bad omen and one recalls the words of Luce Irigaray, who wrote some very lovely lines concerning the precious and mysterious assistance she has received in her life and work directly from birds:
 
"Birds are our friends. But also our guides, our scouts. Our angels in some respect. They accompany persons who are alone, comfort them, restoring their health and their courage. Birds do more. Birds lead one's becoming. The birds' song heals many a useless word [...] restores silence, delivers silence. The bird consoles, gives back to life, but not to inertia." [2] 
 
It may well be that a storm of some kind is approaching and I need to think a little more seriously about the future than I normally do. But somehow, as long as there are birds still nesting and calling in the world, I believe everything will be fine. 
 
 
Notes
 
[1] Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, (Macmillan, 1970). I'm quoting this from memory, so it might not be dead-on balls accurate, as Miss Mona Lisa Vito might say. 

[2] Luce Irigaray, 'Animal Compassion', trans. Marilyn Gaddis Rose, in Animal Philosophy, ed. Matthew Atterton and Peter Calarco, (Continuum, 2004), p. 197. I first quoted these lines in a post published ten years ago; see 'Feathered Friends' (9 Jan 2013): click here


22 Apr 2023

I Am Heinrich Heine

Portrait of Heinich Heine 
by Moritz Daniel Oppenheim (1831)
 
I. 
 
Readers may recall that I recently had a run-in with the Google censor-bots [1] that now patrol the sites hosted by Blogger, seeking out content which infringes their community guidelines.
 
Several posts on Torpedo the Ark have now been flagged for review and subsequently placed behind warning notices which let readers know that they contain sensitive content
 
Although they can still access the offending posts if they wish to do so, readers must first acknowledge these notices and confirm they are old enough to access adult material.  
 
As for me, I'm invited by the Blogger Team to update the content so as to adhere to Blogger's guidelines; once I have done so, I can then republish the posts and ask that their status be reviewed.
 
 
II. 
 
If all this wasn't troubling enough, Google have now gone a step further and actively deleted a post - without any prior notice or permission sought - on the grounds that it doesn't simply infringe but violates their guidelines - which is a particularly strong term to use. 
 
Just for the record: the post in question - 'On the Figure of the Prostitute' (15 May 2013) - did not advocate vice nor lend support to the illegal sex trade; nor did it use an image that could possibly be described as obscene or pornographic.
 
In fact, the post was a critique of sexual exploitation within a free market economy and phallocratic order, which affirmed the feminist position that within such an order there are no bad women, only bad laws. 
 
So, I'm a little puzzled as to what it is Google find so offensive in the above post - and I'm more than a little troubled by the threatening (and fascistic) nature of their closing remark:
 
"We encourage you to review the full content of your blog posts to make sure that they are in line with our standards, as additional violations could result in termination of your blog." 
 
One can only respond to this by paraphrasing the words of the nineteenth century German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine: Where they terminate blogs, they will, in the end, terminate human beings too ... [2]
 
 
Notes
 
[1] See the post entitled 'Torpedo the Ark Versus the Censor-Bots' (1 March 2023): click here
 
[2] In his play of 1821, Almansor, Heinrich Heine wrote: "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen."