From: antonsen-AT-alf.nbi.dk
Subject: Re: Maeg ic be me selfum...  
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 97 13:20:24 +0200


Edward,

I'll take your latest posting as a starting point, please correct me if I have 
misunderstood somethings.

>-- Metaphor is not linguistic.  "One cannot rightly speak" of metaphor 
>in/as language.  Metaphor belongs solely to the realm of Thought.
>
>-- If all language is metaphor, then, by virtue of that totality -- that 
>totalizing movement, description... whatever! -- all language is 
>something else... 

Precisely. Language is something else. It belongs to the realm of thought. Or to 
put more clearly, it is hard to distinguish it from the realm of thought. 
Language does not exist in and of itself. It is not an absolute. A word is not 
the thing it represents, it is not even a thing, it is a metaphor for a thing, a 
symbol or sign. That is one point where I fear Derrida is fataly wrong (he is 
not alone in this: many modern and post-modern philosophers have made the 
mistake of seeing language as something fundamental and not derived, absolute 
and not historical and dialectical). Once more: ceci n'est pas une pibe.
This being said, language isn't used to its full poetic potentialities, this is 
not because language is metaphor. Quite the opposite: poetry is metaphorical too 
(remember Breton said the most beautiful word was the word "comme" (=like/as/
similar to), and Lautreaumont's "beautiful as..." sequences). The utilitaristic 
manner in which language is normally used, makes it "flat", unpoetic, drains it 
of metaphorical content. At that stage, metaphor is seen as something to be 
avoided, because it brings the language (and hence thought and maybe even 
feelings) to life. With a greater feeling of life, almost inevitably follows the 
desire to change the world. Thus, metaphorical language is discouraged by the 
Establishment (or System, Power, Ruling Class Society or call it what you want).
Remember how Breton constantly emphasised that the two calls for action by 
Rimbaud and Marx ("change life", "transform the world") are one and the same for 
surrealists. Remember too, how he insisted on the liberation of language, that 
words must make love. And then recall Lautreaumont's "poetry must be made by 
all". Then I think you'll understand what I mean.

>It is not possible to displace our frame of reference: The Material 
>World.  But we should not, because of that, believe that the material 
>world is all there is, or posit it as an origin.
>
>One need not be religious to believe in a _fall_. --
>
>When artists begin to speak of carbon atoms and computer science, it is 
>evident that they have lost touch with the magical waters of the deep 
>well of fantasy -- the purple, gold, and green landscape of childhood -- 
>eternal childhood that believes in gods and monsters and spirits... and 
>creates its own religion...
>
>There seems to be a strange, prevalent fear of the possibility of being 
>interpreted...

You seem to share the Christian/Buddhist loathing of the material world. Why do 
you fear the body?
Thought/ideas cannot be an origin, because thoughts and ideas do not exist in 
and of themselves, they only exist by virtue of being thought by human beings 
(or any other being capable of thought). Thus they are at least partially 
conditioned by matter. That does not make them worthless, quite the opposite.
You see, matter _is_ magical (or can be). William Blake knows this quite clearly
(you know, the line about finding the truth of the universe in a grain of sand, 
the one about the soul being inseparable from the body and so on).
I think it is precisely this awareness of the magic inherent in matter and in 
everyday life that sets surrealism apart from romanticism, expressionism, 
symbolism, fantasy or any other art movement.
In philosophy the same things have been pursued (inspired very much by 
surrealism) by people such as Walter Benjamin, Ernest Bloch and other people 
related to the (old) Frankfurter school, and also, at least to some degree, 
Gilles Deleuze and Gaston Bachelard.
In poetry it is an old strand going through Blake, Baudelaire, Rimbaud and 
Lautreaumont to Breton, Artaud, Desnos, Peret and all the others.
And remember how in alchemy, the philosopher's stone is made from prima materia, 
which has to be a very common, very overlooked kind of matter.

I don't think you're right in saying there is a fear of being interpreted, 
rather I see a fear of being factualy wrong.

The problem is not to separate reason from feeling/perception/intuition. On the 
contrary, it is to arrive at a synthesis. Originally these faculties were 
indistinguished, but as the child grows up, they develop in different directions 
and become distinct. They are opposites, but opposites are not contradictory, 
they are complementary. And through art (in its widest possible meaning), 
through poetry, one should arrive at a new synthesis, where these faculties are 
once more united, but at a higher plane: they are all fully developed, but 
nolonger in competition with eachother, rather they receive nurishment from 
eachother. This synthesis is what Breton refered to in the manifestoes. It is 
"le point supreme".
If you insist on a dualistic notion, you'll never reach this point. Furthermore, 
as Freud and Fourier before him pointed out, faculties and desires which are not 
allowed to develop, turn inwards and become "bad" instead of "good". Reason is 
not the enemy, nor are the facts, but by ignoring them they conspire against 
you, and then they do become your enemies. 

>As soon as the concept of personal freedom is fetishized and worshipped 
>-- as it is now! -- it ceases to be an ideal; it becomes a prison.

Quite right.
But personal freedom, in the sense of individual freedom will always become a 
prison, unless it is balanced by a collective freedom. Man is first and foremost 
a social animal (even if (s)he choses to be a loner), and live in a social 
context. Nobody is free untill all are free.
The fetish of the individual is, I think, a sign of alienation. It only serves 
the purpose of further atomisation and alienation. Thus it only leads to futher 
repression. Intersubjectivity is vital.

>By reducing the fantasies by which we create a sense of freedom for 
>ourselves, by reducing them to "material" explanations, we remove from 
>our field of vision that which we have come to view as _haze_ or 
>_clouds_ (blocking our quest for some sort of truth) -- this _haze_ is 
>really the glow accompanying the AS YET INCOMPLETE presence of something 
>greater...

Oh, but is not a reduction. Or rather it needn't be....
The material ingredients might very well be preciely what is needed to make the 
glow brighter, to actually light a _fire._
Just like the lack of a material understanding might result in merely chasing 
windmills, and not finding the real underlying cause, the engine of change.
On the other hand, the wrong material explanation can extinguish the sparkles 
before they get a chance to become flames. For that reason we must make sure our 
explanations are adequate.
This problem is not unique to material explanations. Without material 
explanations one just as much runs the risk of killing the faint sparkles 
because one fails to feed them.
It is very important to realize this, because we agree, don't we, that this glow 
is exceedingly beautiful.
 
Now, Edward, I'm not quite sure how much of this you'll agree with. And I'm not 
sure if I've missed the point a few times. 
But that is the purpose of dialogue to sort that out.

Frank