Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 03:28:21 GMT From: twall-AT-oz.net (Thomas Wall) Subject: Re: Re[2]: BwO & Expression Karen Ocana's postings are quite brilliant as always. I am struggling with the notion of the BwO myself and I'm now trying to work out the temporality of it. It's a "pure past" isn't it? That is, a past that was never present and that is nevertheless simultaneously always still possible--always still to come. The BwO is the fact that the body *with* organs has a past that it still must be. So I try to understand it in the way that Blanchot talks of the "sick" hand in his essay *The Essential Solitude*--the hand that cannot not write. Such a hand is not really a hand therefore and it is not really writing. But that's as far as I go. I'm hung up on that "past that still must be"--inexhaustible--the very notion of the inexhaustible--that I can't quite express properly. The notion of a body I still must be conjures up images from Lovecraft or Cronenberg (the potentially infinite versions of Brundle-flies at the end of *The Fly*) and Shaviro's book on film *The Cinematic Body*. Every body *with* organs, every articlated writing, is a trace of that "must" or "cannot not"...it's like a point where time and ethics meet or are the same or are indistinguisable from each other...but a very strange point...I seem incapable of thiking it through somehow... baffled, Tom ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005